6LoWPAN Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track March 29, 2013
Expires: September 30, 2013
6LoWPAN Generic Compression of Headers and Header-like Payloads
draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-06
Abstract
This short I-D provides a simple addition to 6LoWPAN Header
Compression that enables the compression of generic headers and
header-like payloads, without a need to define a new header
compression scheme for each new such header or header-like payload.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Bormann Expires September 30, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 6lowpan-ghc March 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. The Header Compression Coupling Problem . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. 6LoWPAN-GHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Integrating 6LoWPAN-GHC into 6LoWPAN-HC . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Compressing payloads (UDP and ICMPv6) . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Compressing extension headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Indicating GHC capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Using the 6CIO Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
1.1. The Header Compression Coupling Problem
6LoWPAN-HC [RFC6282] defines a scheme for header compression in
6LoWPAN [RFC4944] packets. As with most header compression schemes,
a new specification is needed for every new kind of header that needs
to be compressed. In addition, [RFC6282] does not define an
extensibility scheme like the ROHC profiles defined in ROHC [RFC3095]
[RFC5795]. This leads to the difficult situation that 6LoWPAN-HC
tended to be reopened and reexamined each time a new header receives
consideration (or an old header is changed and reconsidered) in the
6LoWPAN/roll/CoRE cluster of IETF working groups. While [RFC6282]
finally got completed, the underlying problem remains unsolved.
The purpose of the present contribution is to plug into [RFC6282] as
is, using its NHC (next header compression) concept. We add a
slightly less efficient, but vastly more general form of compression
for headers of any kind and even for header-like payloads such as
those exhibited by routing protocols, DHCP, etc. The objective is an
extremely simple specification that can be defined on a single page
and implemented in a small number of lines of code, as opposed to a