Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) Architecture
draft-ietf-schc-architecture-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (schc WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alexander Pelov , Pascal Thubert , Ana Minaburo | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-11 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-lpwan-architecture | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-schc-architecture-02
SCHC Working Group A. Pelov
Internet-Draft IMT Atlantique
Intended status: Informational P. Thubert
Expires: 12 October 2024
A. Minaburo
Consultant
10 April 2024
Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) Architecture
draft-ietf-schc-architecture-02
Abstract
This document defines the SCHC architecture.
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 https://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 12 October 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. SCHC Stratum (plural: strata) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. SCHC Header Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3.1. SCHC Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. SCHC Packet Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4.1. SCHC Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. SCHC Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. SCHC Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6.1. SCHC Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6.2. SoR identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7. SCHC Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.1. SCHC Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. SCHC Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Static Context Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. SCHC over Network Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. SCHC over PPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2. SCHC over Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3. SCHC over IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.4. SCHC over UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. SCHC Endpoints for LPWAN Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. SCHC Device Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1.1. Device Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1.2. Rules Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1.3. SCHC Device Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1.4. SCHC Device Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1.5. SCHC Device Decommissionning . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
The IETF LPWAN WG defined the necessary operations to enable IPv6
over selected Low-Power Wide Area Networking (LPWAN) radio
technologies. [rfc8376] presents an overview of those technologies.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
The Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) [rfc8724] technology is
the core product of the IETF LPWAN working group and was the basis to
form the SCHC Working Group. [rfc8724] defines a generic framework
for header compression and fragmentation, based on a static context
that is pre-installed on the SCHC endpoints.
This document details the constitutive elements of a SCHC-based
solution, and how the solution can be deployed. It provides a
general architecture for a SCHC deployment, positioning the required
specifications, describing the possible deployment types, and
indicating models whereby the rules can be distributed and installed
to enable reliable and scalable operations.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
* C/D. Compression and Decompression.
* Context. All the information related to the Rules for SCHC
Header, Non-Compression, C/D and F/R and CORECONF_Management.
* FID. Field Identifiers, describing the name of the field in a
protocol header.
* F/R. Fragmentation and Reassembly.
* Rule. A description of the header fields to performs compression/
decompression, fragmentation/reassembly, SCHC Instances and
CORECONF_Management.
* SCHC Entities. A host (Device, Application and Network Gateway)
involved in the SCHC process.
* SCHC Instance. The different stages of SCHC in a host. Each
instance will have its Set of Rules (SoR), based on the profile,
the protocols, the device, the behaviour and a Set of Variables
(SoV).
* SCHC Session. Provides the management of SCHC instances, the SoR
of each instance and the dialog between hosts to keep the SCHC
synchronization.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
* SoR (Set of rules). Group of Rules used in a SCHC Instance. The
set of rules contains Rules for different nature as compression,
no compression, fragmentation, SCHC Instances and CORECONF
management.
* SoV (Set of Variables). External information that needs to be
known to identify the correct protocol, the session id, and the
flow when there is one.
* Core SCHC. SCHC entity located upstream in the Network Gateway.
* Device SCHC. SCHC entity located downstream.
4. Building Blocks
This section specifies the principal blocks defined for building and
using the SCHC architecture in any network topology and protocol.
4.1. SCHC Stratum (plural: strata)
A SCHC Stratum is composed of a compressed SCHC Header (which may be
fully implicit and thus elided) and a SCHC-compressed data that is
used to uncompress a section of the packet.
A SCHC-compressed packet contains at least one stratum that is
subject to compression and decompression by an associated SCHC
Instance. The packet may be composed of multiple nested strata,
where a given stratum is in fact the payload of the nesting stratum.
The SCHC stratum data is wrapped between an uncompressed header and a
payload. The SCHC operation swaps the stratum data with the
uncompressed section obtained from the SCHC packet residue.
The uncompressed header may be the result of a previous SCHC
expansion. The payload may contain one or more other strata.
A SCHC stratum may carry the compressed PDU of one or more IP layers
or sublayers, e.g., IP only, IP+UDP, CoAP, or OSCORE [rfc8824].
The end points that handle the compression of a given stratum might
differ for the same packet, meaning that the payload of a given
stratum might be compressed/uncompressed by a different entity,
possibly in a different node. It results that the degree of
compression (the number of strata) for a given packet may vary as the
packet progresses through the layers inside a node and then through
the network.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
4.2. Discriminator
The key to determine how to decompress a SCHC header in a stratum is
called a Discriminator.
The Discriminator is typically extrinsic to the stratum data.
It may be found in the packet context, e.g., the ID of the interface,
VLAN, SSID, or PPP session on which the packet is received
It may also be received in the packet, natively or uncompressed from
a nesting stratum, e.g.: * A source and destination MAC or IP
addresses of the packet carrying SCHC packets * A source and
destination port number of the transport layer carrying SCHC packets
* A next header field * An MPLS label * A TLS Association * Any other
kind of connection id.
The Discriminator enables to determine the SCHC Instance that is used
to decompress the SCHC header, called a SCHC Header Instance.
Once uncompressed, the SCHC Header enables to determine the SCHC
Instance, called a SCHC Packet Instance, that is used to restore the
packet data that is compressed in the stratum.
4.3. SCHC Header Instance
The SCHC Header Instance manages the SCHC Headers and provides the
information and the selection of a SCHC Packet Instance.
The rules for that Instance might be such that all the fields in the
SCHC Header are well-known, in which case the header is fully elided
in the stratum data and recreated from the rules.
The rules might also leverage intrinsic data that is found in-line in
the stratum data, in which case the first bits of the stratum data
are effectively residue to the compression of the SCHC Header.
Finally, the rules may leverage extrinsic data as the Discriminator
does.
Figure 1 illustrates the case where a given stratum may compress
multiple protocols sessions, each corresponding to a different SCHC
Packet Instance.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| SCHC Packet | SCHC Packet | SCHC Packet | S
| Instance ___ | Instance ___ | Instance ___ | C
| [SoR] | [SoR] | [SoR] | H
| [___] | [___] | [___] | C
| | | |
| | | | L
+----inst_id1---+----inst_id2---+----inst_id3---+ A
. SCHC Header Instance ___ . Y
. [SoR] . E
. [___] . R
+...............................................+
_____________^
/
/
+-- Discriminator: (SCHC HEADER)(SCHC PACKET)
Each Packet Instance contains its own Set of Rules,
but share the same SCHC Header.
Figure 1: SCHC Instances for a stratum
4.3.1. SCHC Header
SCHC Header carries information to allow the SCHC strata to work
correctly. For example, it selects the correct Instance and checks
the validity of the datagram. There IS NOT always a RuleID if there
is only one Rule for the SCHC Header, whose length is 0. The SCHC
Header format is not fixed, and the SoR MUST have one or more Rules
describing the formats. SCHC Header contains different fields. For
Instance, when the SCHC header may identify the next protocol in the
stack, the format of the SCHC header takes the format as Figure 2
shows.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
Non-compressed SCHC Header Format:
+- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+- - -+
| Session ID | Protocol ID | CRC |
+- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+- - -+
SCHC Header Compressed:
+- - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - +
| Rule ID | Compressed Residue |
+- - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - +
Rule uses to compressed the SCHC Header:
RuleID
+------------+--+---+--+-----+------+-----------+
| FID |FL|POS|DI| TV | MO | CDA |
+------------+--+---+--+-----+------+-----------+
| SCHC.sesid |10| 1 |Bi|0x00 |MSB(7)| LSB |
| SCHC.proto | 8| 1 |Bi|value|equal | not-sent |
| SCHC.CRC | 8| 1 |Bi| |ignore| value-sent|
+------------+--+---+--+-----+------+-----------+
Figure 2: Example of SCHC Header Format and the corresponding Rule
In this example the Rule defines:
* A SessionID is 10 bits length and it is used to identify the SoR
used for this instance of SCHC.
* A Protocol ID in 1-byte length giving the value send in the layer
below the SCHC packet to identify the uncompressed protocol stack.
* And A CRC. The CRC field is 8 bits length and covers the SCHC
header and the SCHC packet from error. When it is elided by the
compression, the layer-4 checksum MUST be replaced by another
validation sequence.
4.4. SCHC Packet Instance
SCHC Packet Instance is characterized by a particular SoR common with
the corresponding distant entity. The [rfc8724] defines a protocol
operation between a pair of peers. In a SCHC strata, several SCHC
Instances may contain different SoR.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
When the SCHC Device is a highly constrained unit, there is typically
only one Instance for that Device, and all the traffic from and to
the device is exchanged with the same Network Gateway. All the
traffic can thus be implicitly associated with the single Instance
that the device supports, and the Device does not need to manipulate
the concept. For that reason, SCHC avoids to signal explicitly the
Instance identification in its data packets.
The Network Gateway, on the other hand, maintains multiple Instances,
one per SCHC Device. The Instance is derived from the lower layer,
typically the source of an incoming SCHC packet as a discriminator in
the Figure 1. The Instance is used in particular to select the set
of rules that apply to the SCHC Device, and the current state of
their exchange, e.g., timers and previous fragments.
4.4.1. SCHC Packet
The SCHC Packet is composed of a RuleID follows by the content
described in the Rule. The content may be a C/D packet, a F/R
packet, a CORECONF_Management or a Non Compressed packet. As defined
in the [rfc8724], the SCHC packet for C/D is composed of the
Compressed Header followed by the payload from the original packet.
Figure 3 shows the compressed header format that is composed of the
RuledID and a Compressed Residue, which is the output of compressing
a packet header with a Rule.
C/D Compressed Packet:
+------------+----------------------+
| RuleID | Compressed Residue |
+------------+----------------------+
F/R Compressed Packet:
+------------+----------------------+-----
| RuleID | Fragmentation Header | Tiles
+------------+----------------------+-----
CORECONF_Management Compressed Packet:
+------------+----------------------+
| RuleID | Compressed Residue |
+------------+----------------------+
Figure 3: SCHC Packet
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
4.5. SCHC Profiles
A SCHC profile is the specification to adapt the use of SCHC with the
necessities of the technology to which it is applied. In the case of
star topologies and because LPWAN technologies [rfc8376] have strict
yet distinct constraints, e.g., in terms of maximum frame size,
throughput, and directionality, also a SCHC instance and the
fragmentation model with the parameters' values for its use.
Appendix D. "SCHC Parameters" of [rfc8724] lists the information
that an LPWAN technology-specific document must provide to profile
SCHC fragmentation for that technology.
As an example, [rfc9011] provides the SCHC fragmentation profile for
LoRaWAN networks.
4.6. SCHC Operation
The SCHC operation requires a shared sense of which SCHC Device is
Uplink (Dev to App) and which is Downlink (App to Dev), see
[rfc8376]. In a star deployment, the hub is always considered Uplink
and the spokes are Downlink. The expectation is that the hub and
spoke derive knowledge of their role from the network configuration
and SCHC does not need to signal which is hub thus Uplink vs. which
is spoke thus Downlink. In other words, the link direction is
determined from extrinsic properties, and is not advertised in the
protocol.
Nevertheless, SCHC is very generic and its applicability is not
limited to star-oriented deployments and/or to use cases where
applications are very static and the state provisioned in advance.
In particular, a peer-to-peer (P2P) SCHC Instance (see Section 4.4)
may be set up between peers of equivalent capabilities, and the link
direction cannot be inferred, either from the network topology nor
from the device capability.
In that case, by convention, the device that initiates the connection
that sustains the SCHC Instance is considered as being Downlink, i.e.
it plays the role of the Dev in [rfc8724].
This convention can be reversed, e.g., by configuration, but for
proper SCHC operation, it is required that the method used ensures
that both ends are aware of their role, and then again this
determination is based on extrinsic properties.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
4.6.1. SCHC Rules
SCHC Rules are a description of the header protocols fields, into a
list of Field Descriptors. The [rfc8724] gives the format of the
Rule description for C/D, F/R and non-compression. In the same
manner the SCHC Header and SCHc CORECONF_Management will use the
[rfc8724] field descriptors to compress the format information.
Each type of Rule is identified with a RuleID. There are different
types of Rules: C/D, F/R, SCHC Header, CORECONF_Management and No
Compression. Notice that each Rule type used an independent range of
RuleID to identify its rules.
A Rule does not describe how the compressor parses a packet header.
Rules only describe the behavior for each header field.
SCHC Action. ToDo
4.6.2. SoR identification
ToDo
4.7. SCHC Management
RFC9363 writes that only the management can be done by the two
entities of the instance, and other SoR cannot be manipulated.
Management rules are explicitly define in the SoR, see Figure 4.
They are compression Rules for CORECONF messages to get or modify the
SoR of the instance. The management can be limited with the
[I-D.ietf-schc-access-control] access definition.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| ^ | | ^ |
| C/D ! M ___ | | ! M ___ |
| +-->[SoR] | ... | +-->[SoR] |
| ! [___] | | ! [___] |
| ! | | ! |
| F/R | | F/R |
+------ins_id1----+-----ins_idi-----+------ins_idn----+
. C/D ! ___ .
. +--------------------->[SoR] .
. F/R M [___] .
+.................. Discriminator ....................+
Figure 4: Inband Management
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
4.7.1. SCHC Data Model
A SCHC instance, summarized in the Figure 5, implies C/D and/or F/R
and CORECONF_Management and SCHC Instances Rules present in both end
and that both ends are provisioned with the same SoR.
----- -----
[ SoR ] [ SoR ]
----- -----
. .
. .
. .
+- M ---+ +- M ---+
<===| R & D |<=== <===| C & F |<===
===>| C & F |===> ===>| R & D |===>
+-------+ +-------+
Figure 5: Summarized SCHC elements
A common rule representation that expresses the SCHC rules in an
interoperable fashion is needed to be able to provision end-points
from different vendors to that effect, [rfc9363] defines a rule
representation using the YANG [rfc7950] formalism.
[rfc9363] defines a YANG data model to represent the rules. This
enables the use of several protocols for rule management, such as
NETCONF[RFC6241], RESTCONF[RFC8040], and
CORECONF[I-D.ietf-core-comi]. NETCONF uses SSH, RESTCONF uses HTTPS,
and CORECONF uses CoAP(s) as their respective transport layer
protocols. The data is represented in XML under NETCONF, in
JSON[RFC8259] under RESTCONF and in CBOR[RFC8949] under CORECONF.
create
----- read +=======+
[ SoR ]<------->|Rule |<-----+ NETCONF,
----- update |Manager| | RESTCONF or
delete +=======+ | CORECONF
+--------------------------+ request
|
v M
+---+---+
<===| R & D |<===
===>| C & F |===>
+-------+
Figure 6: Summerized SCHC elements
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
The Rule Manager (RM) is in charge of handling data derived from the
YANG Data Model and apply changes to the context and SoR of each SCHC
Instance Figure 6.
The RM is an Application using the Internet to exchange information,
therefore:
* for the network-level SCHC, the communication does not require
routing. Each of the end-points having an RM and both RMs can be
viewed on the same link, therefore wellknown Link Local addresses
can be used to identify the Device and the core RM. L2 security
MAY be deemed as sufficient, if it provides the necessary level of
protection.
* for application-level SCHC, routing is involved and global IP
addresses SHOULD be used. End-to-end encryption is RECOMMENDED.
Management messages can also be carried in the negotiation protocol,
for instace, the [I-D.ietf-schc-over-ppp] proposes a solution. The
RM traffic may be itself compressed by SCHC: if CORECONF protocol is
used, [rfc8824] can be applied.
5. SCHC Architecture
As described in [rfc8824], SCHC feasibility enables combining several
SCHC instances. The [rfc8724] states that a SCHC instance needs the
rules to process C/D and F/R before the session starts and that the
SoR of the instance control layer cannot be modified. However, the
rules may be updated in certain instances to improve the performance
of C/D, F/R, or CORECONF_Management. The
[I-D.ietf-schc-access-control] defines the possible modifications and
who can modify, update, create and delete Rules or part of them in
the instances' SoR.
As represented in Figure 7, the compression of the IP and UDP headers
may be operated by a network SCHC instance whereas the end-to-end
compression of the application payload happens between the Device and
the application. The compression of the application payload may be
split in two instances to deal with the encrypted portion of the
application PDU. Fragmentation applies before LPWAN transmission
layer.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
(Device) (NGW) (App)
+--------+ +--------+
A S | CoAP | | CoAP |
p C | inner | | inner |
p H +--------+ +--------+
. C | SCHC | | SCHC |
| inner | cryptographical boundary | inner |
-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.._.-._.-._.-._.-._
A S | CoAP | | CoAP |
p C | outer | | outer |
p H +--------+ +--------+
. C | SCHC | | SCHC |
| outer | layer / functional boundary | outer |
-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.--._.-._.-._.-._
N . UDP . . UDP .
e .......... .................. ..........
t . IPv6 . . IPv6 . . IPv6 .
w S .......... .................. ..........
o C .SCHC/L3 . . SCHC/L3. . . .
r H .......... .......... . . .
k C . LPWAN . . LPWAN . . . .
.......... .................. ..........
((((LPWAN)))) ------ Internet ------
Figure 7: Different SCHC instances in a global system
This document defines a generic architecture for SCHC that can be
used at any of these levels. The goal of the architectural document
is to orchestrate the different protocols and data model defined by
the LPWAN and SCHC working groups to design an operational and
interoperable framework for allowing IP application over constrained
networks.
The Figure 8 shows the protocol stack and the corresponding SCHC
stratas enabling the compression of the different protocol headers.
The SCHC header eases the introduction of intermediary host in the
end-to-end communication transparently. All the SCHC headers are
compressed and in some cases are elided, for example for LPWAN
networks. The layers using encryption does not have a SCHC header in
the middle because they are the same entity. Figure 9 shows an
example of an IP/UDP/CoAP in an LPWAN network.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
DEV NGW APP
{[(Encrypted Application Layer)]} . . . . . . . . {[(EAL)]}
(Application Layer Protocol) . . . . . . . . . . .({[ALP]})
(SCHC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ({[SCHC]})
{[(Encrypted Security Layer)]} . . . . . . . . . .{[(ESL)]}
{(Security Layer Protocol)}. . . . . . . . . . . . .{(SLP)}
{(SCHC)} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {(SCHC)}
(Transport Layer Protocol). . . (TLP) TLP . . . . . .TLP
{(SCHC)} . . . . . . . . . . {(SCHC)}
(Internet Layer Protocol) . . . (IP) IP . . . . . . IP
(SCHC). . . . . . . . . . . . .(SCHC)
Network Layer Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NLP
Where: {} Optional; [] Encrypted; () Compressed.
Figure 8: SCHC Architecture
In Figure 8, each line represents a layer or a stratum, parentheses
surround a compressed header, and if it is optional, it has curly
brackets. All the SCHC strata are compressed. Square brackets
represent the encrypted data; if the encryption is optional, curly
brackets precede the square brackets.
Figure 9 represents the stack of SCHC instances that operate over 3
strata, one for OSCORE, one for CoAP, and one for IP and UDP.
+--------------------------OSCORE-------------------------+
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | ^ | | ^ | |
| | C/D ! M ___ | | ! M ___ | |
S | | +-->[SoR] | ... | +-->[SoR] | |
C | | ! [___] | | ! [___] | |
H | | ! | | ! | |
C | | F/R | | F/R | |
| +------ins_id1----+-----ins_idi-----+------ins_idn----+ |
| | C/D ! (OSCORE) ___ | |
| | +--------------------->[SoR] | |
| | F/R M [___] | |
+------- Discriminator: IP:A->B/UDP, prot = OSCORE--------+
IP/UDP,port=CoAP CoAP ( ) (OSCORE)
^ _____^ ^
| / |
| (SCHC Header)( SCHC-compressed data)
|
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
+-------- | ---------------CoAP---------------------------+
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | ^ | | ^ | |
| | C/D ! M ___ | | ! M ___ | |
S | | +-->[SoR] | ... | +-->[SoR] | |
C | | ! [___] | | ! [___] | |
H | | ! | | ! | |
C | | F/R | | F/R | |
| +------ins_id1----+-----ins_idi-----+------ins_idn----+ |
| | C/D ! (CoAP) ___ | |
| | +--------------------->[SoR] | |
| | F/R M [___] | |
+------- Discriminator: IP:A->B/UDP port=SCHC -----------+
IP/UDP ( ) (CoAP) PAYLOAD2
^ ^ ^_____________
| | \
| +-(SCHC Header)( SCHC-compressed data)
|
+-------- | --------------IP/UDP--------------------------+
| +------ | --------+ +-----------------+ |
| | | | | ^ | |
| | C/D ! M ___ | | ! M ___ | |
S | | +-->[SoR] | ... | +-->[SoR] | |
C | | ! [___] | | ! [___] | |
H | | ! | | ! | |
C | | F/R | | F/R | |
| +------ins_id1----+-----ins_idi-----+------ins_idn----+ |
| | C/D ! (IP/UDP) | |
| | +--------------------->[SoR] | |
| | F/R M [___] | |
+-+-----------Discriminator: interface ID -------+-+
N ______________^
E /
T | ( ) (IP/UDP) PAYLOAD1
W | ^ ^_______
| | \
+-(SCHC Header)( SCHC-compressed data)
Figure 9: SCHC Strata Example
6. The Static Context Header Compression
SCHC [rfc8724] specifies an extreme compression capability based on a
description that must match on the compressor and decompressor side.
This description comprises a set of Compression/Decompression (C/D)
rules.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
The SCHC Parser analyzes incoming packets and creates a list of
fields that it matches against the compression rules. The rule that
matches is used to compress the packet, and the rule identifier
(RuleID) is transmitted together with the compression residue to the
decompressor. Based on the RuleID and the residue, the decompressor
can rebuild the original packet and forward it in its uncompressed
form over the Internet. When no Rule matches the header, the No
Compression Rule is used. When several Rules match the header the
implementation must choose one. How it is done or based on which
parameters is out of the scope of this document. SCHC compresses
datagrams and there is no notion of flows.
[rfc8724] also provides a Fragmentation/Reassembly (F/R) capability
to cope with the maximum and/or variable frame size of a Link, which
is extremely constrained in the case of an LPWAN network.
If a SCHC-compressed packet is too large to be sent in a single Link-
Layer PDU, the SCHC fragmentation can be applied on the compressed
packet. The process of SCHC fragmentation is similar to that of
compression; the fragmentation rules that are programmed for this
Device are checked to find the most appropriate one, regarding the
SCHC packet size, the link error rate, and the reliability level
required by the application.
The ruleID allows to determine if it is a compression or
fragmentation rule or any other type of Rule.
6.1. SCHC over Network Technologies
SCHC can be used in multiple environments and multiple protocols. It
was designed by default to work on native MAC frames with LPWAN
technologies such as LoRaWAN[rfc9011], IEEE std 802.15.4
[I-D.ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4], and SigFox[rfc9442].
To operate SCHC over Ethernet, IPv6, and UDP, the definition of,
respectively, an Ethertype, an IP Protocol Number, and a UDP Port
Number are necessary, more in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers]. In either case, there's a
need for a SCHC header that is sufficient to identify the SCHC peers
(endpoints) and their role (device vs. app), as well as the session
between those peers that the packet pertains to.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
In either of the above cases, the expectation is that the SCHC header
is transferred in a compressed form. This implies that the rules to
uncompress the header are well known and separate from the rules that
are used to uncompress the SCHC payload. The expectation is that for
each stratum, the format of the SCHC header and the compression rules
are well known, with enough information to identify the session at
that stratum, but there is no expectation that they are the same
across strata.
6.1.1. SCHC over PPP
The LPWAN architecture (Figure 14) generalizes the model to any kind
of peers. In the case of more capable devices, a SCHC Device may
maintain more than one Instance with the same peer, or a set of
different peers. Since SCHC does not signal the Instance in its
packets, the information must be derived from a lower layer point to
point information. For instance, the SCHC instance control can be
associated one-to-one with a tunnel, a TLS session, or a TCP or a PPP
connection.
For instance, [I-D.ietf-schc-over-ppp] describes a type of deployment
where the C/D and/or F/R operations are performed between peers of
equal capabilities over a PPP [rfc2516] connection. SCHC over PPP
illustrates that with SCHC, the protocols that are compressed can be
discovered dynamically and the rules can be fetched on-demand using
CORECONF messages Rules, ensuring that the peers use the exact same
set of rules.
+----------+ Wi-Fi / +----------+ ....
| IP | Ethernet | IP | .. )
| Host +-----/------+ Router +----------( Internet )
| SCHC C/D | Serial | SCHC C/D | ( )
+----------+ +----------+ ...
<-- SCHC -->
over PPP
Figure 10: PPP-based SCHC Deployment
In that case, the SCHC Instance is derived from the PPP connection.
This means that there can be only one Instance per PPP connection,
and that all the flow and only the flow of that Instance is exchanged
within the PPP connection. As discussed in Section 7, the Uplink
direction is from the node that initiated the PPP connection to the
node that accepted it.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
6.1.2. SCHC over Ethernet
Before the SCHC compression takes place, the SCHC header showed in
the Figure 11, is virtually inserted before the real protocol header
and data that are compressed in the session, e.g. a IPv6 in this
figure.
|---- SCHC PACKET ----|
+------------------+------------------+---------+-----------+
| IEEE 802 Header | SCHC Header | Rule ID | Compressed|
| Ethertype = SCHC | Ethertype = IPv6 | | Residue |
+------------------+------------------+---------+-----------+
<-
SCHC overhead
->
Figure 11: SCHC over Ethernet
6.1.3. SCHC over IPv6
In the case of IPv6, the expectation is that the Upper Layer Protocol
(ULP) checksum can be elided in the SCHC compression of the ULP,
because the SCHC header may have its own checksum that protects both
the SCHC header and the whole ULP, header and payload.
The SCHC Header between IPv6 and the ULP is not needed because of the
Next Header field on the IPv6 header format.
|---- SCHC Packet -----|
+-------------+-------------+---------+------------+
| IPv6 Header | SCHC Header | Rule ID | Compressed |
| NH=SCHC | NH = ULP | | Residue |
+-------------+-------------+---------+------------+
<-
SCHC overhead
->
Figure 12: SCHC over IPv6
In the air, both the SCHC header and the ULP are compressed. The
session endpoints are typically identified by the source and
destination IP addresses. If the roles are well-known, then the
endpoint information can be elided and deduced from the IP header.
If there is only one session, it can be elided as well, otherwise a
rule and residue are needed to extract the session ID.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
6.1.4. SCHC over UDP
When SCHC operates over the Internet, middleboxes may block packets
with a next header that is SCHC. To avoid that issue, it would be
desirable to prepend a UDP header before the SCHC header as shown in
figure Figure 13.
|---- SCHC Packet -----|
+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+------------+
| IPv6 Header | UDP Header | SCHC Header | Rule ID | Compressed |
| NH=UDP | Port = SCHC | NH = ULP | | Residue |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+------------+
<-
SCHC overhead
->
~
Figure 13: SCHC over UDP
In that case, the destination port can indicate SCHC as in an header
chain, and the source port can indicate the SCHC session in which
case it can be elided in the compressed form of the SCHC header. The
UDP checksum protects both the SCHC header and the whole ULP, so the
SCHC and the ULP checksums can both be elided. In other words, in
the SCHC over UDP case, the SCHC header can be fully elided, but the
packet must carry the overhead of a full UDP header.
7. SCHC Endpoints for LPWAN Networks
Section 3 of [rfc8724] depicts a typical network architecture for an
LPWAN network, simplified from that shown in [rfc8376] and reproduced
in Figure 14.
() () () |
() () () () / \ +---------+
() () () () () () / \======| ^ | +-----------+
() () () | | <--|--> | |Application|
() () () () / \==========| v |=============| Server |
() () () / \ +---------+ +-----------+
Dev RGWs NGW App
Figure 14: Typical LPWAN Network Architecture
Typically, an LPWAN network topology is star-oriented, which means
that all packets between the same source-destination pair follow the
same path from/to a central point. In that model, highly constrained
Devices (Dev) exchange information with LPWAN Application Servers
(App) through a central Network Gateway (NGW), which can be powered
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
and is typically a lot less constrained than the Devices. Because
Devices embed built-in applications, the traffic flows to be
compressed are known in advance and the location of the C/D and F/R
functions (e.g., at the Dev and NGW), and the associated rules, can
be pre provisioned in the system before use.
7.1. SCHC Device Lifecycle
In the context of LPWANs, the expectation is that SCHC rules are
associated with a physical device that is deployed in a network.
This section describes the actions taken to enable an automatic
commissioning of the device in the network.
7.1.1. Device Development
The expectation for the development cycle is that message formats are
documented as a data model that is used to generate rules. Several
models are possible:
1. In the application model, an interface definition language and
binary communication protocol such as Apache Thrift is used, and
the parser code includes the SCHC operation. This model imposes
that both ends are compiled with the generated structures and
linked with generated code that represents the rule operation.
2. In the device model, the rules are generated separately. Only
the device-side code is linked with generated code. The Rules
are published separately to be used by a generic SCHC engine that
operates in a middle box such as a SCHC gateway.
3. In the protocol model, both endpoint generate a packet format
that is imposed by a protocol. In that case, the protocol itself
is the source to generate the Rules. Both ends of the SCHC
compression are operated in middle boxes, and special attention
must be taken to ensure that they operate on the compatible SoR,
basically the same major version of the same SoR.
Depending on the deployment, the tools that generate the Rules should
provide knobs to optimize the SoR, e.g., more rules vs. larger
residue.
7.1.2. Rules Publication
In the device model and in the protocol model, at least one of the
endpoints must obtain the SoR dynamically. The expectation is that
the SoR are published to a reachable repository and versionned
(minor, major). Each SoR should have its own Uniform Resource Names
(URN) [RFC8141] and a version.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
The SoR should be authenticated to ensure that it is genuine, or
obtained from a trusted app store. A corrupted SoR may be used for
multiple forms of attacks, more in Section 8.
7.1.3. SCHC Device Deployment
The device and the network should mutually authenticate themselves.
The autonomic approach [RFC8993] provides a model to achieve this at
scale with zero touch, in networks where enough bandwidth and compute
are available. In highly constrained networks, one touch is usually
necessary to program keys in the devices.
The initial handshake between the SCHC endpoints should comprise a
capability exchange whereby URN and the version of the SoR are
obtained or compared. SCHC may not be used if both ends can not
agree on an URN and a major version.
Manufacturer Usage Descriptions (MUD) [RFC8520] may be used for that
purpose in the device model.
Upon the handshake, both ends can agree on a SoR, their role when the
rules are asymmetrical, and fetch the SoR if necessary. Optionally,
a node that fetched a SoR may inform the other end that it is reacy
from transmission.
7.1.4. SCHC Device Maintenance
URN update without device update (bug fix) FUOTA => new URN =>
reprovisioning
7.1.5. SCHC Device Decommissionning
Signal from device/vendor/network admin
8. Security Considerations
SCHC is sensitive to the rules that could be abused to form arbitrary
long messages or as a form of attack against the C/D and/or F/R
functions, say to generate a buffer overflow and either modify the
Device or crash it. It is thus critical to ensure that the rules are
distributed in a fashion that is protected against tempering, e.g.,
encrypted and signed.
9. IANA Consideration
This document has no request to IANA
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetic order): Laurent
Toutain
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8141>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[rfc8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8724>.
[rfc8824] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and R. Andreasen, "Static
Context Header Compression (SCHC) for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8824,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8824, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8824>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4]
Gomez, C. and A. Minaburo, "Transmission of SCHC-
compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4-05,
28 February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4-05>.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Van der Stok, P., Pelov, A., Bierman, A.,
and C. Bormann, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-17,
4 March 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-core-comi-17>.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers]
Moskowitz, R., Card, S. W., Wiethuechter, A., and P.
Thubert, "Protocol Numbers for SCHC", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers-
02, 8 April 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers-02>.
[I-D.ietf-schc-access-control]
Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., and I. Martinez, "SCHC Access
Control", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
schc-access-control-00, 13 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-schc-
access-control-00>.
[I-D.ietf-schc-over-ppp]
Thubert, P., "SCHC over PPP", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-schc-over-ppp-00, 25 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-schc-
over-ppp-00>.
[rfc2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[rfc2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D.,
and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, DOI 10.17487/RFC2516,
February 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2516>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[rfc7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[rfc8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[rfc8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259>.
[rfc8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8376>.
[RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
Description Specification", RFC 8520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8520>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
[RFC8993] Behringer, M., Ed., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia,
L., and J. Nobre, "A Reference Model for Autonomic
Networking", RFC 8993, DOI 10.17487/RFC8993, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8993>.
[rfc9011] Gimenez, O., Ed. and I. Petrov, Ed., "Static Context
Header Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC) over LoRaWAN",
RFC 9011, DOI 10.17487/RFC9011, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9011>.
[rfc9363] Minaburo, A. and L. Toutain, "A YANG Data Model for Static
Context Header Compression (SCHC)", RFC 9363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9363, March 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9363>.
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SCHC Architecture April 2024
[rfc9442] Zúñiga, J., Gomez, C., Aguilar, S., Toutain, L., Céspedes,
S., Wistuba, D., and J. Boite, "Static Context Header
Compression (SCHC) over Sigfox Low-Power Wide Area Network
(LPWAN)", RFC 9442, DOI 10.17487/RFC9442, July 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9442>.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Pelov
IMT Atlantique
rue de la Chataigneraie
35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: alexander.pelov@imt-atlantique.fr
Pascal Thubert
06330 Roquefort les Pins
France
Email: pascal.thubert@gmail.com
Ana Minaburo
Consultant
35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: anaminaburo@gmail.com
Pelov, et al. Expires 12 October 2024 [Page 25]