Network Working Group                                          R. Jasani
Internet-Draft                                        J. Pezeshki
Intended status: Experimental
Internet-Draft                                                E. Ertekin
Expires: March 26, August 28, 2007                                       R. Jasani
                                                             C. Christou
                                                     Booz Allen Hamilton
                                                      September 22, 2006

Extensions to
                                                       February 24, 2007

  IKEv2 Extensions to Support Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec)
                 draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-00.txt
              draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, August 28, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   When using Header Compression (HC) schemes (e.g.  ROHC [ROHC]) in
   conjunction with IPsec
   (i.e., [IPSEC] (i.e.  [HCOIPSEC]) a mechanism is
   needed to negotiate both the HC
   scheme and any associated ROHC configuration parameters between end-points
   prior to operation.  Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which
   can be leveraged to handle these negotiations.  This document
   specifies extensions to Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) (IKEv2 [IKEV2]) that
   will allow
   header compression schemes ROHC and their its associated configuration parameters to be
   negotiated for IPsec security associations. associations (SAs).

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Header Compression Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.
     2.1.  Negotiation of Header Compression Scheme Negotiation  . . . Parameters . . . . . . .  3
       3.1.1.  Notify Payload For RoHC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         3.1.1.1.
       2.1.1.  Profiles Suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.2.  Notify Payload For IPHC/cRTP/ECRTP . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.3.  Notify Payload For None  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  6
   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  7
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  7
   5.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  7
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  8
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  8
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13  8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 10

1.  Introduction

   Packet

   Increased packet header overhead incurred by applications that use due to IPsec protection can result
   in inefficient bandwidth utilization of the communications
   channel. bandwidth.  Coupling header compression HC with IPsec [IPSEC] (i.e.,
   [HCOIPSEC])
   offers an efficient way to deploy these applications
   securely. transfer protected IP traffic.

   HC schemes require their configuration parameters to be negotiated between
   the compressor and decompressor, prior to operation.  Current
   hop-by-hop HC hop-by-
   hop ROHC schemes negotiate these parameters through a link-layer
   protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). (PPP) (i.e.  ROHC over PPP
   [ROHCPPP]).  Similarly, key exchange protocols (e.g.  IKEv2) exist,
   which are commonly used to negotiate parameters between IPsec peers
   before a SA can be established.  This document proposes the use of
   IPsec's parameter negotiation mechanism, IKE, to handle HC scheme and parameter negotiation ROHC channel
   configuration for HCoIPsec.  This
   document details how IKEv2 must be extended  Various extensions to provide the
   functionality required IKEv2, designed to initialize an HC channel and negotiate HC
   scheme parameters.

2.  Audience

   The target audience of
   provide this document includes those who functionality, are involved
   with the design and development of Header Compression (HC) schemes,
   IPsec mechanisms, and the IETF HCoIPsec participants.  In addition, detailed within this document is intended for vendors developing IPsec encryption/
   decryption devices that may be deployed in bandwidth-constrained, IP
   networking environments.

3. document.

2.  Header Compression Channel Negotiation

   The initialization of a HC ROHC session entails negotiating requires the HC scheme
   to be used, as well as any negotiation of a
   set of configuration parameters that are required
   by that particular HC scheme.  IKEv2, an extensible protocol that
   negotiates parameters via request/response message pairs (e.g.
   exchange), will be used maximum context identifier
   length, etc.).  As such, a mechanism must exist for a ROHC enabled
   device to initialize share a HCoIPsec session.

   IKEv2 negotiation list of a HCoIPsec session is implemented supported HC parameters with its peer, and
   for the peer to select the appropriate parameters from this list.

   Similarly, negotiable parameters must also be shared between IPsec
   peers before a Notify
   payload as part SA can be established.  To perform this negotiation, a
   key exchange protocol, IKEv2, is commonly used.  IKEv2 is an
   extensible protocol that negotiates parameters via request/response
   message pairs (i.e. exchanges).

   A set of extensions to IKEv2 can be defined, which will allow for
   ROHC parameters to be negotiated during the IKE_AUTH creation and CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges.  The rekeying of
   Child SAs.  This new Notify payload will be used to negotiate:

   1.  HC scheme
   2.  HC scheme configuration contain values for the set
   of ROHC parameters

3.1.  Header Compression Scheme Negotiation

   An IPsec end-point may be able to support multiple compression types,
   including RObust Header Compression (ROHC) [ROHC], IP be negotiated between the two ROHC peers.

2.1.  Negotiation of Header Compression (IPHC) [IPHC], Compressed RTP CRTP [CRTP], and/or
   Enhanced Compressed RTP ECRTP [ECRTP].  As such, for a given Child
   SA, the Parameters

   ROHC configuration parameters for these HC schemes will be negotiated at either the
   establishment or rekeying of a Child SA.

   The  Specifically, a Notify
   payload will be used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA
   exchanges to negotiate the HCoIPsec session.  This  The Notify payload sent
   by the initiator will contain the proposed/accepted HC schemes for the Child
   SA, as well as the configuration parameters for each the
   ROHC scheme.  Upon receipt of the initiator's request, the responder
   will either ignore the payload (if it doesn't support ROHC or the
   proposed parameters) or respond with a Notify payload that contains
   the accepted negotiable parameters.

   A new Notify Message Type value, denoted HC_SUPPORTED, ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be
   added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying HC information.  In
   addition, the supported HC schemes and their corresponding
   configuration parameters will be communicated ROHC channel
   parameters.  As defined in [IPSEC], the Notification
   Data field.

   Note: The prioritized list of allowable HC schemes within the
   Notification Data field of the Notify payload should always end with
   NONE, indicating uncompressed traffic.

   The Notify payload used to convey HC information must begin with the
   following payload header: is specified
   as follows:

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ! Next Payload  !C!  RESERVED   !         Payload Length        !
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   !  Protocol ID  !   SPI Size    !      Notify Message Type      !
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   !                                                               !
   ~                Security Parameter Index (SPI)                        Notification Data                      ~
   !                                                               !
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 1: Notify Payload Header

   To negotiate HCoIPsec, the values for the fields in the Notify
   payload are defined as follows:

   Next Payload (1 octet)
      Identifier for the payload type of the next payload in the
      message.  If the current payload is the last in the message, then
      this field will be 0.  The Next Payload value of the previous
      payload must be 41, indicating that this current payload is a
      Notify Payload.

   Critical (1 bit)
      This value is set to zero, indicating that the recipient must skip
      this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in
      the Next Payload field of the previous payload.

   RESERVED (7 bits)
      Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt.

   Payload Length (2 octets)
      Length in octets of the current payload, including the generic
      payload header.

   Protocol ID (1 octet)
      If this notification concerns an existing SA, this field indicates
      the SA type.  This field must contain either (2) to indicate type of that SA (i.e.  IKE_SA, AH [AH], or
      (3) to indicate ESP on [ESP]).  Since
      the Child SA.  For notifications that ROHC parameters are set at SA creation, and thus do not relate
      to an existing SA, this field must be sent as zero and
      ignored on receipt.  This value must not be set to (1), since this
      refers to IKE_SA notifications.  All other values for this field
      are reserved to IANA for future assignment. zero.

   SPI Size (1 octet)
      Length in octets of the SPI as defined by the IPsec protocol ID or
      zero if ID.
      This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable. applicable (ROHC
      parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been
      defined).

   Notify Message Type (2 octets)
      Specifies the type of notification message.  This field must be
      set to HC_SUPPORTED.

   SPI (variable length)
      Security Parameter Index.

   Following the ROHC_SUPPORTED.

   ROHC configuration parameters will be communicated via a new Notify payload header, the remainder of the payload is
   used to identify the proposed HC schemes, and their associated
   message type, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED.  The ROHC configuration parameters.  Each scheme
   parameters will be listed within the Notification Data field in the
   following format:

    0 1 2 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     HC ID     |   Next HC ID  |
   ! HC Parameter Length      | PRMTR LNTH !            MAX_CID            !     MRRU...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ...MRRU     !           MAX_HEADER          !               !
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +
   !                                                               !
   ~               HC Scheme Configuration Parameters                          suboptions...                        ~
   !                                                               !
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 2: Portion of HC Notify Payload Body (repeated for each
   proposed HC scheme) Notification Data field

   HC ID PARAMETER LENGTH (1 octet)
      Identifies the HC scheme that is being defined within
      >= 7 (i.e. the combined length of HC
      Scheme Configuration Parameters field(s). PARAMETER LENGTH, MAX_CID,
      MRRU, and MAX_HEADER)

   MAX_CID (2 octets)
      The order in which the
      HC ID fields occur within the HC Notify payload define MAX_CID field indicates the order maximum value of preference (i.e. the first HC scheme defined is the scheme a context
      identifier.  This value must be at least 0 and at most
      preferred by the initiator).

   Next HC ID (1 octet)
      Identifies the HC scheme that 16383 (The
      value 0 implies having one context).

      Suggested value: 15

      Note: The value of LARGE_CIDS will be defined after the HC Scheme
      Configuration Parameters field(s).  If this is the last HC scheme
      to be proposed, implicitly determined by
      this value (i.e. if MAX_CID is set <= 15, LARGE_CIDS will be assumed
      to zero.

   HC Parameter Length (2 octets)
      The length, in octets, of the configuration parameters for this
      particular HC scheme.

   HC Scheme Configuration Parameters (Variable Length)
      The negotiable parameters for the particular HC scheme.

3.1.1.  Notify Payload For RoHC

   For ROHC, the NOTIFY payload will be of the following form (ignoring
   the header depicted in Figure 1):

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  HC ID (ROHC) |   Next HC ID  |      HC Parameter Length      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            MAX_CID            |             MRRU              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           MAX_HEADER          |          suboptions...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 3: Portion of HC Notify Payload Body for negotiating RoHC
   parameters

   HC ID
      1 (ROHC)

   HC Parameter Length
      >= 6

   MAX_CID
      The MAX_CID field is two octets and indicates the maximum value of
      a context identifier.  This value must be at least 0 and at most
      16383 (The value 0 implies having one context).

      Suggested value: 15

      Note: The value of LARGE_CIDS will be implicitly determined by
      this value (i.e. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS will be assumed
      to be 0).

   MRRU
      The MRRU field is two octets and indicates the maximum
      reconstructed reception unit (see [ROHC], section 5.1.1).

      Suggested value: 0

   MAX_HEADER
      The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.

      Suggested value: 168 octets

      The value of MAX_HEADER should be large enough so that at least
      the outer network layer header can be compressed.  To increase
      compression efficiency MAX_HEADER should be set to a value large
      enough to cover common combinations of network and transport layer
      headers.

      Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all RoHC profiles.
      If none of the RoHC profiles require this field, this value is
      ignored.

   suboptions
      The suboptions field consists of zero or more suboptions.  Each
      suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or
      more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type.  The
      value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in
      its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields.

       0                   1                   2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |  Parameters...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 4: Suboption for RoHC

      Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the
      ROHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other
      SA of the pair (e.g. the SA pointing in the reverse direction).

3.1.1.1.  Profiles Suboption

   The set of profiles to be enabled on a Child SA is subject to
   negotiation.

    0                   1                   2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |  Parameters...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 5: Profiles suboption

   Type
      1

   Length
      2n+2

   Value
      n octet-pairs in ascending order, each octet-pair specifying a
      ROHC profile supported.  Values negotiated are assigned in the
      RoHC profile identifiers registry [ROHCPROF].

3.1.2.  Notify Payload For IPHC/cRTP/ECRTP

   For IPHC/cRTP/ECRTP, the NOTIFY payload will be of the following form
   (ignoring the header depicted in Figure 1):

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | HC ID (ECRTP) |   Next HC ID  |      HC Parameter Length      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           TCP_SPACE           |         NON_TCP_SPACE         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         F_MAX_PERIOD          |          F_MAX_TIME           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           MAX_HEADER          |          suboptions...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 6: Portion of HC Notify Payload Body for negotiating IPHC/
   cRTP/ECRTP parameters

   HC ID
      2 (ECRTP)
      3 (cRTP)
      4 (IPHC)

   HC Parameter Length
      >= 10

   TCP_SPACE
      The TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum value
      of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
      allocated for TCP.

      Suggested value: 15

      TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 255 (the value 0 implies
      having one context).

   NON_TCP_SPACE
      The NON_TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum
      value of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
      allocated for non-TCP.  These context identifiers are carried in
      COMPRESSED_NON_TCP, COMPRESSED_UDP and COMPRESSED_RTP packet
      headers.

      Suggested value: 15

      NON_TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 65535 (the value 0
      implies having one context).

   F_MAX_PERIOD
      Maximum interval between full headers.  No more than F_MAX_PERIOD
      COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers may be sent between FULL_HEADER
      headers. be 0).

   MRRU (2 octets)
      The MRRU field indicates the maximum reconstructed reception unit
      (see [ROHC], section 5.1.1).

      Suggested value: 256

      A 0

      Note: The MRRU value of zero implies infinity, i.e. there is no limit to used in conjunction with the
      number of consecutive COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers.

   F_MAX_TIME
      Maximum time interval between full headers.  COMPRESSED_NON_TCP
      headers may segmentation
      protocol defined in ROHC.  Since a HCoIPsec compressor and
      decompressor will generally be separated by multiple link-layer
      "hops", segmentation will not be sent more than F_MAX_TIME seconds after sending needed.  In these cases the last FULL_HEADER header.

      Suggested value: 5 seconds
      A MRRU
      value of zero implies infinity. should be set to zero, indicating that no segmented ROHC
      segmented-header packets are allowed on the channel.

   MAX_HEADER (2 octets)
      The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.

      Suggested value: 168 octets

      Note: The value of MAX_HEADER should be large enough so that at least parameter is not used for all ROHC profiles.
      If none of the outer network layer header can be compressed.  To increase
      compression efficiency MAX_HEADER should be set to a ROHC profiles require this field, this value large
      enough to cover common combinations of network and transport layer
      headers. is
      ignored.

   suboptions
      The suboptions field consists of zero one or more suboptions.  Each
      suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or
      more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type.  The
      value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in
      its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields.

    0 1 2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |
   !     Type      |      !    Length     |     !  Parameters...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 7: 3: Suboption for IPHC/cRTP/ECRTP

3.1.3.  Notify Payload For None

   For None,

      Note: When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the Notify payload will be
      ROHC channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other
      SA of the following form (ignoring pair (i.e. the header depicted SA pointing in Figure 1):

    0                   1                   2                   3 the reverse direction).

2.1.1.  Profiles Suboption

   The set of profiles to be enabled on a Child SA is subject to
   negotiation.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | HC ID (NONE ) |   NEXT HC ID  |      HC PARAMETER LENGTH      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   !     Type      !    Length     !  Profiles...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 8: Portion of HC Notify Payload Body for no HC scheme

   HC ID
      0

   HC Parameter 4: Profiles suboption

   Type
      1

   Length
      0

   Note: None (e.g. no HC) should always be proposed last.  If proposed
   last,
      2n+2

   Value
      n octet-pairs in ascending order, each octet-pair specifying a
      ROHC profile supported.  Values negotiated are assigned in the Next HC ID field for this set of fields must be set to
   zero.

4.
      ROHC profile identifiers registry [ROHCPROF].

3.  Security Considerations

   The negotiated HC schemes and parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not
   add any any new vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal
   operation of IKEv2.

5.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new Notify Message Type Type.  Therefore, if the
   proposal is accepted, IANA is requested to allocate on value of which future
   assignments will be managed by from the IANA.

   The following registry should be updated:
   IKEv2 Notify Message Types (REF4306, Section 3.10.1)

   The following registry should be created:
      HC ID (Section 4.1)

   The following HC IDs should be allocated:

      HC ID  Document   Identifier
        0    RFCthis       None
        1    RFCthis       ROHC
        2    RFCthis       ECRTP
        3    RFCthis       cRTP
        4    RFCthis       IPHC

6. to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED.

5.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler,
   and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, and as well as Mr. Rich
   Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development
   of this document.  The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero
   Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document.  In
   addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their
   numerous reviews and comments to this document:

      Mr. Tero Kivinen

      Dr. Stephen Kent
      Dr. Carsten Bormann
      Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson

   Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms.
   Renee Esposito,

   Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower.

7.

6.  References

7.1.

6.1.  Normative References

   [IPSEC]    Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [HCOIPSEC]
              Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of
              Header Compression over IPsec Security Associations", work
              in progress , June 2006.

   [IPHC]     Nordgren, M., Pink, B., and S. Pink, "IP Header
              Compression", RFC 2509, February 1999.

   [CRTP]     Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
              Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508,
              February 1999.

   [ECRTP]    Koren, T. and et. al., "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers on
              Links with High Delay, Packet Loss, and Reordering",
              RFC 3545, July 2003.

   [ROHC]     Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
              Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K.,
              Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
              Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
              Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
              ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.

   [IPSEC]    Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [HCOIPSEC]
              Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of
              Header Compression over IPsec Security Associations", work
              in progress , February 2007.

   [IKEV2]    Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [ROHCPROF]
              "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers",
              IANA list
              www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , October 2005.

7.2.

6.2.  Informative References

   [ROHCPPP]  Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
              RFC 3241, April 2002.

   [IPHCPPP]  Engan, M., Casner, S., Bormann, C., and T. Koren, "IP
              Header Compression over PPP", RFC 3544, July 2003.

   [AH]       Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

   [ESP]      Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [CRTPE]    Degermark, M., Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., and K. Svanbro,
              "Evaluation of CRTP Performance over Cellular Radio
              Networks", IEEE Personal Communication Magazine , Volume
              7, number 4, pp. 20-25, August 2000.

   [ROHCE]    Ash, J. and et. al, "Requirements for ECRTP over MPLS",
              work in progress , December 2004.

   [TCRTP]    Thompson, B., "Tunneling of Multiplexed Compressed RTP",
              work in progress , September 2004.

Authors' Addresses

   Rohan Jasani

   Jonah Pezeshki
   Booz Allen Hamilton
   13200 Woodland Park Dr.
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Email: jasani_rohan@bah.com

   Jonah Pezeshki pezeshki_jonah@bah.com

   Emre Ertekin
   Booz Allen Hamilton
   13200 Woodland Park Dr.
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com

   Emre Ertekin ertekin_emre@bah.com

   Rohan Jasani
   Booz Allen Hamilton
   13200 Woodland Park Dr.
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Email: ertekin_emre@bah.com jasani_rohan@bah.com

   Chris Christou
   Booz Allen Hamilton
   13200 Woodland Park Dr.
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Email: christou_chris@bah.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).