IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)
RFC 3173

Network Working Group                                         A. Shacham
Request for Comments: 3173                                       Juniper
Obsoletes: 2393                                               B. Monsour
Category: Standards Track                                     Consultant
                                                              R. Pereira
                                                                   Cisco
                                                               M. Thomas
                                                              Consultant
                                                          September 2001

                IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a protocol intended to provide lossless
   compression for Internet Protocol datagrams in an Internet
   environment.

1. Introduction

   IP payload compression is a protocol to reduce the size of IP
   datagrams.  This protocol will increase the overall communication
   performance between a pair of communicating hosts/gateways ("nodes")
   by compressing the datagrams, provided the nodes have sufficient
   computation power, through either CPU capacity or a compression
   coprocessor, and the communication is over slow or congested links.

   IP payload compression is especially useful when encryption is
   applied to IP datagrams.  Encrypting the IP datagram causes the data
   to be random in nature, rendering compression at lower protocol
   layers (e.g., PPP Compression Control Protocol [RFC1962])
   ineffective.  If both compression and encryption are required,
   compression must be applied before encryption.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

   This document defines the IP payload compression protocol (IPComp),
   the IPComp packet structure, the IPComp Association (IPCA), and
   several methods to negotiate the IPCA.

   Other documents shall specify how a specific compression algorithm
   can be used with the IP payload compression protocol.  Such
   algorithms are beyond the scope of this document.

1.1. Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Compression Process

   The compression processing of IP datagrams has two phases:
   compressing of outbound IP datagrams ("compression") and
   decompressing of inbound datagrams ("decompression").  The
   compression processing MUST be lossless, ensuring that the IP
   datagram, after being compressed and decompressed, is identical to
   the original IP datagram.

   Each IP datagram is compressed and decompressed by itself without any
   relation to other datagrams ("stateless compression"), as IP
   datagrams may arrive out of order or not arrive at all.  Each
   compressed IP datagram encapsulates a single IP payload.

   Processing of inbound IP datagrams MUST support both compressed and
   non-compressed IP datagrams, in order to meet the non-expansion
   policy requirements, as defined in section 2.2.

   The compression of outbound IP datagrams MUST be done before any IP
   security processing, such as encryption and authentication, and
   before any fragmentation of the IP datagram.  In addition, in IP
   version 6 [RFC2460], the compression of outbound IP datagrams MUST be
   done before the addition of either a Hop-by-Hop Options header or a
   Routing Header, since both carry information that must be examined
   and processed by possibly every node along a packet's delivery path,
   and therefore MUST be sent in the original form.

   Similarly, the decompression of inbound IP datagrams MUST be done
   after the reassembly of the IP datagrams, and after the completion of
   all IP security processing, such as authentication and decryption.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

2.1. Compressed Payload

   The compression is applied to a single array of octets, which are
   contiguous in the IP datagram.  This array of octets always ends at
   the last octet of the IP packet payload.  Note: A contiguous array of
   octets in the IP datagram may be not contiguous in physical memory.

   In IP version 4 [RFC0791], the compression is applied to the payload
   of the IP datagram, starting at the first octet following the IP
   header, and continuing through the last octet of the datagram.  No
   portion of the IP header or the IP header options is compressed.
   Note: In the case of an encapsulated IP header (e.g., tunnel mode
   encapsulation in IPsec), the datagram payload is defined to start
   immediately after the outer IP header; accordingly, the inner IP
   header is considered part of the payload and is compressed.

   In the IPv6 context, IPComp is viewed as an end-to-end payload, and
   MUST NOT apply to hop-by-hop, routing, and fragmentation extension
   headers.  The compression is applied starting at the first IP Header
   Option field that does not carry information that must be examined
   and processed by nodes along a packet's delivery path, if such an IP
   Header Option field exists, and continues to the ULP payload of the
   IP datagram.

   The size of a compressed payload, generated by the compression
   algorithm, MUST be in whole octet units.

   As defined in section 3, an IPComp header is inserted immediately
   preceding the compressed payload.  The original IP header is modified
   to indicate the usage of the IPComp protocol and the reduced size of
   the IP datagram.  The original content of the Next Header (IPv6) or
   protocol (IPv4) field is stored in the IPComp header.

   The decompression is applied to a single contiguous array of octets
   in the IP datagram.  The start of the array of octets immediately
   follows the IPComp header and ends at the last octet of the IP
   payload.  If the decompression process is successfully completed, the
   IP header is modified to indicate the size of the decompressed IP
   datagram, and the original next header as stored in the IPComp
   header.  The IPComp header is removed from the IP datagram and the
   decompressed payload immediately follows the IP header.

2.2. Non-Expansion Policy

   If the total size of a compressed payload and the IPComp header, as
   defined in section 3, is not smaller than the size of the original
   payload, the IP datagram MUST be sent in the original non-compressed
   form.  To clarify: If an IP datagram is sent non-compressed, no

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

   IPComp header is added to the datagram.  This policy ensures saving
   the decompression processing cycles and avoiding incurring IP
   datagram fragmentation when the expanded datagram is larger than the
   MTU.

   Small IP datagrams are likely to expand as a result of compression.
   Therefore, a numeric threshold should be applied before compression,
   where IP datagrams of size smaller than the threshold are sent in the
   original form without attempting compression.  The numeric threshold
   is implementation dependent.

   An IP datagram with payload that has been previously compressed tends
   not to compress any further.  The previously compressed payload may
   be the result of external processes, such as compression applied by
   an upper layer in the communication stack, or by an off-line
   compression utility.  An adaptive algorithm should be implemented to
   avoid the performance hit.  For example, if the compression of i
   consecutive IP datagrams of an IPCA fails, the next several IP
   datagrams, say k, are sent without attempting compression.  If then
   the next j datagrams also fail to compress, a larger number of
   datagrams, say k+n, are sent without attempting compression.  Once a
   datagram is compressed successfully, the normal process of IPComp
   restarts.  Such an adaptive algorithm, including all the related
   thresholds, is implementation dependent.

   During the processing of the payload, the compression algorithm MAY
   periodically apply a test to determine the compressibility of the
   processed data, similar to the requirements of [V42BIS].  The nature
   of the test is algorithm dependent.  Once the compression algorithm
   detects that the data is non-compressible, the algorithm SHOULD stop
   processing the data, and the payload is sent in the original non-
   compressed form.

3. Compressed IP Datagram Header Structure

   A compressed IP datagram is encapsulated by modifying the IP header
   and inserting an IPComp header immediately preceding the compressed
   payload.  This section defines the IP header modifications both in
   IPv4 and IPv6, and the structure of the IPComp header.

3.1. IPv4 Header Modifications

   The following IPv4 header fields are set before transmitting the
   compressed IP datagram:

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

      Total Length

         The length of the entire encapsulated IP datagram, including
         the IP header, the IPComp header and the compressed payload.

      Protocol

         The Protocol field is set to 108, IPComp Datagram, [RFC1700].

      Header Checksum

         The Internet Header checksum [RFC0791] of the IP header.

   All other IPv4 header fields are kept unchanged, including any header
   options.

3.2. IPv6 Header Modifications

   The following IPv6 header fields are set before transmitting the
   compressed IP datagram:

      Payload Length

         The length of the compressed IP payload.

      Next Header

         The Next Header field is set to 108, IPComp Datagram,
         [RFC1700].

   All other IPv6 header fields are kept unchanged, including any non-
   compressed header options.

   The IPComp header is placed in an IPv6 packet using the same rules as
   the IPv6 Fragment Header.  However if an IPv6 packet contains both an
   IPv6 Fragment Header and an IPComp header, the IPv6 Fragment Header
   MUST precede the IPComp header in the packet.  Note: Other IPv6
   headers may be present between the IPv6 Fragment Header and the
   IPComp header.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

3.3.  IPComp Header Structure

   The four-octet header has the following structure:

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Next Header  |     Flags     | Compression Parameter Index |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Next Header

      8-bit selector.  Stores the IPv4 Protocol field or the IPv6 Next
      Header field of the original IP header.

   Flags

      8-bit field.  Reserved for future use.  MUST be set to zero.  MUST
      be ignored by the receiving node.

   Compression Parameter Index (CPI)

      16-bit index.  The CPI is stored in network order.  The values
      0-63 designate well-known compression algorithms, which require no
      additional information, and are used for manual setup.  The values
      themselves are identical to IPCOMP Transform identifiers as
      defined in [SECDOI].  Consult [SECDOI] for an initial set of
      defined values and for instructions on how to assign new values.
      The values 64-255 are reserved for future use.  The values
      256-61439 are negotiated between the two nodes in definition of an
      IPComp Association, as defined in section 4.  Note: When
      negotiating one of the well-known algorithms, the nodes MAY select
      a CPI in the pre-defined range 0-63.  The values 61440-65535 are
      for private use among mutually consenting parties.  Both nodes
      participating can select a CPI value independently of each other
      and there is no relationship between the two separately chosen
      CPIs.  The outbound IPComp header MUST use the CPI value chosen by
      the decompressing node.  The CPI in combination with the
      destination IP address uniquely identifies the compression
      algorithm characteristics for the datagram.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

4. IPComp Association (IPCA) Negotiation

   To utilize the IPComp protocol, two nodes MUST first establish an
   IPComp Association (IPCA) between them.  The IPCA includes all
   required information for the operation of IPComp, including the
   Compression Parameter Index (CPI), the mode of operation, the
   compression algorithm to be used, and any required parameter for the
   selected compression algorithm.

   The policy for establishing IPComp may be either a node-to-node
   policy where IPComp is applied to every IP packet between the nodes,
   or a session-based policy where only selected sessions between the
   nodes employ IPComp.

   Two nodes may choose to negotiate IPComp in either or both
   directions, and they may choose to employ a different compression
   algorithm in each direction.  The nodes MUST, however, negotiate a
   compression algorithm in each direction for which they establish an
   IPCA: there is no default compression algorithm.

   No compression algorithm is mandatory for an IPComp implementation.

   The IPCA is established by dynamic negotiations or by manual
   configuration.  The dynamic negotiations SHOULD use the Internet Key
   Exchange protocol [IKE], where IPsec is present.  The dynamic
   negotiations MAY be implemented through a different protocol.

4.1. Use of IKE

   For IPComp in the context of IP Security, IKE provides the necessary
   mechanisms and guidelines for establishing IPCA.  Using IKE, IPComp
   can be negotiated as stand-alone or in conjunction with other IPsec
   protocols.

   An IPComp Association is negotiated by the initiator using a Proposal
   Payload, which includes one or more Transform Payloads.  The Proposal
   Payload specifies the IP Payload Compression Protocol in the protocol
   ID field and each Transform Payload contains the specific compression
   algorithm(s) being offered to the responder.

   The CPI is sent in the SPI field of the proposal, with the SPI size
   field set to match.  The CPI SHOULD be sent as a 16-bit number, with
   the SPI size field set to 2.  Alternatively, the CPI MAY be sent as a
   32-bit value, with the SPI size field set to 4.  In this case, the
   16-bit CPI number MUST be placed in the two least significant octets
   of the SPI field, while the two most significant octets MUST be set
   to zero, and MUST be ignored by the receiving node.  The receiving
   node MUST be able to process both forms of the CPI proposal.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

   In the Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation (DOI), IPComp is
   negotiated as the Protocol ID PROTO_IPCOMP.  The compression
   algorithm is negotiated as one of the defined IPCOMP Transform
   Identifiers.

   The following attributes are applicable to IPComp proposals:

      Encapsulation Mode

         To propose a non-default Encapsulation Mode (such as Tunnel
         Mode), an IPComp proposal MUST include an Encapsulation Mode
         attribute.  If the Encapsulation Mode is unspecified, the
         default value of Transport Mode is assumed.

      Lifetime

         An IPComp proposal uses the Life Duration and Life Type
         attributes to suggest life duration to the IPCA.

   When IPComp is negotiated as part of a Protection Suite, all the
   logically related offers must be consistent.  However, an IPComp
   proposal SHOULD NOT include attributes that are not applicable to
   IPComp.  An IPComp proposal MUST NOT be rejected because it does not
   include attributes of other protocols in the Protection Suite that
   are not relevant to IPComp.  When an IPComp proposal includes such
   attributes, those attributes MUST be ignored when setting the IPCA,
   and therefore ignored in the operation of IPComp.

   Implementation note:

      A node can avoid the computation necessary for determining the
      compression algorithm from the CPI if it is using one of the
      well-known algorithms; this can save time in the decompression
      process.  A node can do this by negotiating a CPI equal in value
      to the pre-defined Transform identifier of that compression
      algorithm.  Specifically: A node MAY offer a CPI in the pre-
      defined range by sending a Proposal Payload that MUST contain a
      single Transform Payload, which is identical to the CPI.  When
      proposing two or more Transform Payloads, a node MAY offer CPIs in
      the pre-defined range by using multiple IPComp proposals -- each
      MUST include a single Transform Payload.  To clarify: If a
      Proposal Payload contains two or more Transform Payloads, the CPI
      MUST be in the negotiated range.  A receiving node MUST be able to
      process each of these proposal forms.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

   Implementation note:

      IPCAs become non-unique when two or more IPComp sessions are
      established between two nodes, and the same well-known CPI is used
      in at least two of the sessions.  Non-unique IPCAs pose problems
      in maintaining attributes specific to each IPCA, either negotiated
      (e.g., lifetime) or internal (e.g., the counters of the adaptive
      algorithm for handling previously compressed payload).  To ensure
      the uniqueness of IPCAs between two nodes, when two or more of the
      IPCAs use the same compression algorithm, the CPIs SHOULD be in
      the negotiated range.  However, when the IPCAs are not required to
      be unique, for example when no attribute is being utilized for
      these IPCAs, a well-known CPI MAY be used.  To clarify: When only
      a single session using a particular well-known CPI is established
      between two nodes, this IPCA is unique.

4.2. Use of Non-IKE Protocol

   The dynamic negotiations MAY be implemented through a protocol other
   than IKE.  Such a protocol is beyond the scope of this document.

4.3. Manual Configuration

   Nodes may establish IPComp Associations using manual configuration.
   For this method, a limited number of Compression Parameters Indexes
   (CPIs) is designated to represent a list of specific compression
   methods.

5. Security Considerations

   When IPComp is used in the context of IPsec, it is believed not to
   have an effect on the underlying security functionality provided by
   the IPsec protocol; i.e., the use of compression is not known to
   degrade or alter the nature of the underlying security architecture
   or the encryption technologies used to implement it.

   When IPComp is used without IPsec, IP payload compression potentially
   reduces the security of the Internet, similar to the effects of IP
   encapsulation [RFC2003].  For example, IPComp may make it difficult
   for border routers to filter datagrams based on header fields.  In
   particular, the original value of the Protocol field in the IP header
   is not located in its normal positions within the datagram, and any
   transport layer header fields within the datagram, such as port
   numbers, are neither located in their normal positions within the
   datagram nor presented in their original values after compression.  A
   filtering border router can filter the datagram only if it shares the
   IPComp Association used for the compression.  To allow this sort of
   compression in environments in which all packets need to be filtered

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 9]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

   (or at least accounted for), a mechanism must be in place for the
   receiving node to securely communicate the IPComp Association to the
   border router.  This might, more rarely, also apply to the IPComp
   Association used for outgoing datagrams.

6. IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.  The well-known
   numbers used in this document are defined elsewhere; see [SECDOI].

7. Changes made since RFC 2393

   This section summarizes the changes in this document from RFC 2393 of
   which an implementer of RFC 2393 should be aware.  All the changes
   are meant to clarify the negotiation of an IPComp Association (IPCA)
   using IKE [IKE] in the context of IPsec.

   1) Added a clarification that IPComp can be negotiated stand-alone or
      bundled with other protocols in a Protection Suite.

   2) Defined the CPI in the SPI field of an IKE proposal: two-octet
      field is a SHOULD, four-octet a MAY.  Defined the placement of the
      16-bit CPI in a four-octet field.  Specified that a receiver MUST
      process both field sizes.

   3) Added wording to define the default Encapsulation Mode to be
      Transport Mode.  Required that an IPComp proposal MUST include an
      Encapsulation Mode attribute when it suggests a non-default
      encapsulation, such as Tunnel Mode.

   4) Added the Lifetime attribute to the list of supported attributes
      (along with Transport Mode).

   5) Specified the handling of attributes of transforms in a Protection
      Suite that are not applicable to IPComp: These attributes SHOULD
      NOT be included in an IPComp proposal and MUST be ignored when
      setting IPCA and in the operation of IPComp.  IPComp
      implementations MUST never reject an IPCOMP proposal that does not
      include attributes of other transforms.

   6) Added implementation notes on the negotiation and usage of CPIs in
      the predefined (well-known) range.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

8. References

   [RFC0791] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
             September 1981.

   [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
             1700, October 1994.  Or see:
             http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

   [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
             (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC1962] Rand, D., "The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)", RFC
             1962, June 1996.

   [RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
             October 1996.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [IKE]     Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
             (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [SECDOI]  Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
             Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [V42BIS]  CCITT, "Data Compression Procedures for Data Circuit
             Terminating Equipment (DCE) Using Error Correction
             Procedures", Recommendation V.42 bis, January 1990.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

Authors' Addresses

   Abraham Shacham
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, California 94089
   United States of America

   EMail: shacham@shacham.net

   Bob Monsour
   18 Stout Road
   Princeton, New Jersey 08540
   United States of America

   EMail: bob@bobmonsour.com

   Roy Pereira
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   55 Metcalfe Street
   Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L5
   Canada

   EMail: royp@cisco.com

   Matt Thomas
   3am Software Foundry
   8053 Park Villa Circle
   Cupertino, California 95014
   United States of America

   EMail: matt@3am-software.com

Comments

   Comments should be addressed to the ippcp@external.cisco.com mailing
   list and/or the author(s).

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 12]
RFC 3173            IP Payload Compression Protocol       September 2001

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Shacham, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 13]