home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 1992-05-26 | 126.8 KB | 3,868 lines |
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group W. Simpson
- Request for Comments: 1331 Daydreamer
- Obsoletes: RFCs 1171, 1172 May 1992
-
-
-
- The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
- for the
- Transmission of Multi-protocol Datagrams
- over Point-to-Point Links
-
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
- community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
- Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
- Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- Abstract
-
- The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a method for transmitting
- datagrams over serial point-to-point links. PPP is comprised of
- three main components:
-
- 1. A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links.
-
- 2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
- and testing the data-link connection.
-
- 3. A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing
- and configuring different network-layer protocols.
-
- This document defines the PPP encapsulation scheme, together with the
- PPP Link Control Protocol (LCP), an extensible option negotiation
- protocol which is able to negotiate a rich assortment of
- configuration parameters and provides additional management
- functions.
-
- This RFC is a product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of
- the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments on this memo
- should be submitted to the ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu mailing list.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page i]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Table of Contents
-
-
- 1. Introduction .......................................... 1
- 1.1 Specification of Requirements ................... 3
- 1.2 Terminology ..................................... 3
-
- 2. Physical Layer Requirements ........................... 4
-
- 3. The Data Link Layer ................................... 5
- 3.1 Frame Format .................................... 6
-
- 4. PPP Link Operation .................................... 10
- 4.1 Overview ........................................ 10
- 4.2 Phase Diagram ................................... 10
- 4.3 Link Dead (physical-layer not ready) ............ 10
- 4.4 Link Establishment Phase ........................ 11
- 4.5 Authentication Phase ............................ 11
- 4.6 Network-Layer Protocol Phase .................... 12
- 4.7 Link Termination Phase .......................... 12
-
- 5. The Option Negotiation Automaton ...................... 14
- 5.1 State Diagram ................................... 15
- 5.2 State Transition Table .......................... 16
- 5.3 States .......................................... 18
- 5.4 Events .......................................... 20
- 5.5 Actions ......................................... 24
- 5.6 Loop Avoidance .................................. 26
- 5.7 Counters and Timers ............................. 27
-
- 6. LCP Packet Formats .................................... 28
- 6.1 Configure-Request ............................... 30
- 6.2 Configure-Ack ................................... 31
- 6.3 Configure-Nak ................................... 32
- 6.4 Configure-Reject ................................ 33
- 6.5 Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack ............. 35
- 6.6 Code-Reject ..................................... 36
- 6.7 Protocol-Reject ................................. 38
- 6.8 Echo-Request and Echo-Reply ..................... 39
- 6.9 Discard-Request ................................. 40
-
- 7. LCP Configuration Options ............................. 42
- 7.1 Format .......................................... 43
- 7.2 Maximum-Receive-Unit ............................ 44
- 7.3 Async-Control-Character-Map ..................... 45
- 7.4 Authentication-Protocol ......................... 47
- 7.5 Quality-Protocol ................................ 49
- 7.6 Magic-Number .................................... 51
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page ii]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.7 Protocol-Field-Compression ...................... 54
- 7.8 Address-and-Control-Field-Compression ........... 56
-
- APPENDICES ................................................... 58
-
- A. Asynchronous HDLC ..................................... 58
-
- B. Fast Frame Check Sequence (FCS) Implementation ........ 61
- B.1 FCS Computation Method .......................... 61
- B.2 Fast FCS table generator ........................ 63
-
- C. LCP Recommended Options ............................... 64
-
- SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 65
-
- REFERENCES ................................................... 65
-
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 66
-
- CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 66
-
- AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 66
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page iii]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 1. Introduction
-
- Motivation
-
- In the last few years, the Internet has seen explosive growth in
- the number of hosts supporting TCP/IP. The vast majority of these
- hosts are connected to Local Area Networks (LANs) of various
- types, Ethernet being the most common. Most of the other hosts
- are connected through Wide Area Networks (WANs) such as X.25 style
- Public Data Networks (PDNs). Relatively few of these hosts are
- connected with simple point-to-point (i.e., serial) links. Yet,
- point-to-point links are among the oldest methods of data
- communications and almost every host supports point-to-point
- connections. For example, asynchronous RS-232-C [1] interfaces
- are essentially ubiquitous.
-
- Encapsulation
-
- One reason for the small number of point-to-point IP links is the
- lack of a standard encapsulation protocol. There are plenty of
- non-standard (and at least one de facto standard) encapsulation
- protocols available, but there is not one which has been agreed
- upon as an Internet Standard. By contrast, standard encapsulation
- schemes do exist for the transmission of datagrams over most
- popular LANs.
-
- PPP provides an encapsulation protocol over both bit-oriented
- synchronous links and asynchronous links with 8 bits of data and
- no parity. These links MUST be full-duplex, but MAY be either
- dedicated or circuit-switched. PPP uses HDLC as a basis for the
- encapsulation.
-
- PPP has been carefully designed to retain compatibility with most
- commonly used supporting hardware. In addition, an escape
- mechanism is specified to allow control data such as XON/XOFF to
- be transmitted transparently over the link, and to remove spurious
- control data which may be injected into the link by intervening
- hardware and software.
-
- The PPP encapsulation also provides for multiplexing of different
- network-layer protocols simultaneously over the same link. It is
- intended that PPP provide a common solution for easy connection of
- a wide variety of hosts, bridges and routers.
-
- Some protocols expect error free transmission, and either provide
- error detection only on a conditional basis, or do not provide it
- at all. PPP uses the HDLC Frame Check Sequence for error
- detection. This is commonly available in hardware
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- implementations, and a software implementation is provided.
-
- By default, only 8 additional octets are necessary to form the
- encapsulation. In environments where bandwidth is at a premium,
- the encapsulation may be shortened to as few as 2 octets. To
- support high speed hardware implementations, PPP provides that the
- default encapsulation header and information fields fall on 32-bit
- boundaries, and allows the trailer to be padded to an arbitrary
- boundary.
-
- Link Control Protocol
-
- More importantly, the Point-to-Point Protocol defines more than
- just an encapsulation scheme. In order to be sufficiently
- versatile to be portable to a wide variety of environments, PPP
- provides a Link Control Protocol (LCP). The LCP is used to
- automatically agree upon the encapsulation format options, handle
- varying limits on sizes of packets, authenticate the identity of
- its peer on the link, determine when a link is functioning
- properly and when it is defunct, detect a looped-back link and
- other common misconfiguration errors, and terminate the link.
-
- Network Control Protocols
-
- Point-to-Point links tend to exacerbate many problems with the
- current family of network protocols. For instance, assignment and
- management of IP addresses, which is a problem even in LAN
- environments, is especially difficult over circuit-switched
- point-to-point links (such as dial-up modem servers). These
- problems are handled by a family of Network Control Protocols
- (NCPs), which each manage the specific needs required by their
- respective network-layer protocols. These NCPs are defined in
- other documents.
-
- Configuration
-
- It is intended that PPP be easy to configure. By design, the
- standard defaults should handle all common configurations. The
- implementor may specify improvements to the default configuration,
- which are automatically communicated to the peer without operator
- intervention. Finally, the operator may explicitly configure
- options for the link which enable the link to operate in
- environments where it would otherwise be impossible.
-
- This self-configuration is implemented through an extensible
- option negotiation mechanism, wherein each end of the link
- describes to the other its capabilities and requirements.
- Although the option negotiation mechanism described in this
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- document is specified in terms of the Link Control Protocol (LCP),
- the same facilities may be used by the Internet Protocol Control
- Protocol (IPCP) and others in the family of NCPs.
-
- 1.1. Specification of Requirements
-
- In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
- of the specification. These words are often capitalized.
-
- MUST
-
- This word, or the adjective "required", means that the definition
- is an absolute requirement of the specification.
-
- MUST NOT
-
- This phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition
- of the specification.
-
- SHOULD
-
- This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there may
- exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this
- item, but the full implications should be understood and carefully
- weighed before choosing a different course.
-
- MAY
-
- This word, or the adjective "optional", means that this item is
- one of an allowed set of alternatives. An implementation which
- does not include this option MUST be prepared to interoperate with
- another implementation which does include the option.
-
- 1.2. Terminology
-
- This document frequently uses the following terms:
-
- peer
-
- The other end of the point-to-point link.
-
- silently discard
-
- This means the implementation discards the packet without further
- processing. The implementation SHOULD provide the capability of
- logging the error, including the contents of the silently
- discarded packet, and SHOULD record the event in a statistics
- counter.
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 2. Physical Layer Requirements
-
- The Point-to-Point Protocol is capable of operating across any
- DTE/DCE interface (e.g., EIA RS-232-C, EIA RS-422, EIA RS-423 and
- CCITT V.35). The only absolute requirement imposed by PPP is the
- provision of a full-duplex circuit, either dedicated or circuit-
- switched, which can operate in either an asynchronous (start/stop) or
- synchronous bit-serial mode, transparent to PPP Data Link Layer
- frames. PPP does not impose any restrictions regarding transmission
- rate, other than those imposed by the particular DTE/DCE interface in
- use.
-
- PPP does not require any particular synchronous encoding, such as FM,
- NRZ, or NRZI.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- NRZ is currently most widely available, and on that basis is
- recommended as a default. When configuration of the encoding is
- allowed, NRZI is recommended as an alternative, because of its
- relative immunity to signal inversion configuration errors.
-
- PPP does not require the use of modem control signals, such as
- Request To Send (RTS), Clear To Send (CTS), Data Carrier Detect
- (DCD), and Data Terminal Ready (DTR).
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- When available, using such signals can allow greater functionality
- and performance. In particular, such signals SHOULD be used to
- signal the Up and Down events in the Option Negotiation Automaton
- (described below).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 3. The Data Link Layer
-
- The Point-to-Point Protocol uses the principles, terminology, and
- frame structure of the International Organization For
- Standardization's (ISO) High-level Data Link Control (HDLC)
- procedures (ISO 3309-1979 [2]), as modified by ISO 3309:1984/PDAD1
- "Addendum 1: Start/stop transmission" [5]. ISO 3309-1979 specifies
- the HDLC frame structure for use in synchronous environments. ISO
- 3309:1984/PDAD1 specifies proposed modifications to ISO 3309-1979 to
- allow its use in asynchronous environments.
-
- The PPP control procedures use the definitions and Control field
- encodings standardized in ISO 4335-1979 [3] and ISO 4335-
- 1979/Addendum 1-1979 [4]. The PPP frame structure is also consistent
- with CCITT Recommendation X.25 LAPB [6], since that too is based on
- HDLC.
-
- The purpose of this memo is not to document what is already
- standardized in ISO 3309. We assume that the reader is already
- familiar with HDLC, or has access to a copy of [2] or [6]. Instead,
- this paper attempts to give a concise summary and point out specific
- options and features used by PPP. Since "Addendum 1: Start/stop
- transmission", is not yet standardized and widely available, it is
- summarized in Appendix A.
-
- To remain consistent with standard Internet practice, and avoid
- confusion for people used to reading RFCs, all binary numbers in the
- following descriptions are in Most Significant Bit to Least
- Significant Bit order, reading from left to right, unless otherwise
- indicated. Note that this is contrary to standard ISO and CCITT
- practice which orders bits as transmitted (i.e., network bit order).
- Keep this in mind when comparing this document with the international
- standards documents.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 3.1. Frame Format
-
- A summary of the standard PPP frame structure is shown below. This
- figure does not include start/stop bits (for asynchronous links), nor
- any bits or octets inserted for transparency. The fields are
- transmitted from left to right.
-
- +----------+----------+----------+----------+------------
- | Flag | Address | Control | Protocol | Information
- | 01111110 | 11111111 | 00000011 | 16 bits | *
- +----------+----------+----------+----------+------------
- ---+----------+----------+-----------------
- | FCS | Flag | Inter-frame Fill
- | 16 bits | 01111110 | or next Address
- ---+----------+----------+-----------------
-
- Inter-frame Time Fill
-
- For asynchronous links, inter-frame time fill SHOULD be accomplished
- in the same manner as inter-octet time fill, by transmitting
- continuous "1" bits (mark-hold state).
-
- For synchronous links, the Flag Sequence SHOULD be transmitted during
- inter-frame time fill. There is no provision for inter-octet time
- fill.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Mark idle (continuous ones) SHOULD NOT be used for idle
- synchronous inter-frame time fill. However, certain types of
- circuit-switched links require the use of mark idle, particularly
- those that calculate accounting based on bit activity. When mark
- idle is used on a synchronous link, the implementation MUST ensure
- at least 15 consecutive "1" bits between Flags, and that the Flag
- Sequence is generated at the beginning and end of a frame.
-
- Flag Sequence
-
- The Flag Sequence is a single octet and indicates the beginning or
- end of a frame. The Flag Sequence consists of the binary sequence
- 01111110 (hexadecimal 0x7e).
-
- The Flag is a frame separator. Only one Flag is required between two
- frames. Two consecutive Flags constitute an empty frame, which is
- ignored.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- The "shared zero mode" Flag Sequence "011111101111110" SHOULD NOT
- be used. When not avoidable, such an implementation MUST ensure
- that the first Flag Sequence detected (the end of the frame) is
- promptly communicated to the link layer.
-
- Address Field
-
- The Address field is a single octet and contains the binary sequence
- 11111111 (hexadecimal 0xff), the All-Stations address. PPP does not
- assign individual station addresses. The All-Stations address MUST
- always be recognized and received. The use of other address lengths
- and values may be defined at a later time, or by prior agreement.
- Frames with unrecognized Addresses SHOULD be silently discarded, and
- reported through the normal network management facility.
-
- Control Field
-
- The Control field is a single octet and contains the binary sequence
- 00000011 (hexadecimal 0x03), the Unnumbered Information (UI) command
- with the P/F bit set to zero. Frames with other Control field values
- SHOULD be silently discarded.
-
- Protocol Field
-
- The Protocol field is two octets and its value identifies the
- protocol encapsulated in the Information field of the frame.
-
- This Protocol field is defined by PPP and is not a field defined by
- HDLC. However, the Protocol field is consistent with the ISO 3309
- extension mechanism for Address fields. All Protocols MUST be odd;
- the least significant bit of the least significant octet MUST equal
- "1". Also, all Protocols MUST be assigned such that the least
- significant bit of the most significant octet equals "0". Frames
- received which don't comply with these rules MUST be considered as
- having an unrecognized Protocol, and handled as specified by the LCP.
- The Protocol field is transmitted and received most significant octet
- first.
-
- Protocol field values in the "0---" to "3---" range identify the
- network-layer protocol of specific datagrams, and values in the "8--
- -" to "b---" range identify datagrams belonging to the associated
- Network Control Protocols (NCPs), if any.
-
- Protocol field values in the "4---" to "7---" range are used for
- protocols with low volume traffic which have no associated NCP.
- Protocol field values in the "c---" to "f---" range identify
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- datagrams as link-layer Control Protocols (such as LCP).
-
- The most up-to-date values of the Protocol field are specified in the
- most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [11]. Current values are assigned
- as follows:
-
- Value (in hex) Protocol Name
-
- 0001 to 001f reserved (transparency inefficient)
- 0021 Internet Protocol
- 0023 OSI Network Layer
- 0025 Xerox NS IDP
- 0027 DECnet Phase IV
- 0029 Appletalk
- 002b Novell IPX
- 002d Van Jacobson Compressed TCP/IP
- 002f Van Jacobson Uncompressed TCP/IP
- 0031 Bridging PDU
- 0033 Stream Protocol (ST-II)
- 0035 Banyan Vines
- 0037 reserved (until 1993)
- 00ff reserved (compression inefficient)
-
- 0201 802.1d Hello Packets
- 0231 Luxcom
- 0233 Sigma Network Systems
-
- 8021 Internet Protocol Control Protocol
- 8023 OSI Network Layer Control Protocol
- 8025 Xerox NS IDP Control Protocol
- 8027 DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol
- 8029 Appletalk Control Protocol
- 802b Novell IPX Control Protocol
- 802d Reserved
- 802f Reserved
- 8031 Bridging NCP
- 8033 Stream Protocol Control Protocol
- 8035 Banyan Vines Control Protocol
-
- c021 Link Control Protocol
- c023 Password Authentication Protocol
- c025 Link Quality Report
- c223 Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
-
- Developers of new protocols MUST obtain a number from the Internet
- Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), at IANA@isi.edu.
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 8]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Information Field
-
- The Information field is zero or more octets. The Information field
- contains the datagram for the protocol specified in the Protocol
- field. The end of the Information field is found by locating the
- closing Flag Sequence and allowing two octets for the Frame Check
- Sequence field. The default maximum length of the Information field
- is 1500 octets. By negotiation, consenting PPP implementations may
- use other values for the maximum Information field length.
-
- On transmission, the Information field may be padded with an
- arbitrary number of octets up to the maximum length. It is the
- responsibility of each protocol to disambiguate padding octets from
- real information.
-
- Frame Check Sequence (FCS) Field
-
- The Frame Check Sequence field is normally 16 bits (two octets). The
- use of other FCS lengths may be defined at a later time, or by prior
- agreement.
-
- The FCS field is calculated over all bits of the Address, Control,
- Protocol and Information fields not including any start and stop bits
- (asynchronous) and any bits (synchronous) or octets (asynchronous)
- inserted for transparency. This does not include the Flag Sequences
- or the FCS field itself. The FCS is transmitted with the coefficient
- of the highest term first.
-
- Note: When octets are received which are flagged in the Async-
- Control-Character-Map, they are discarded before calculating the
- FCS. See the description in Appendix A.
-
- For more information on the specification of the FCS, see ISO 3309
- [2] or CCITT X.25 [6].
-
- Note: A fast, table-driven implementation of the 16-bit FCS
- algorithm is shown in Appendix B. This implementation is based on
- [7], [8], and [9].
-
- Modifications to the Basic Frame Format
-
- The Link Control Protocol can negotiate modifications to the standard
- PPP frame structure. However, modified frames will always be clearly
- distinguishable from standard frames.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 9]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 4. PPP Link Operation
-
- 4.1. Overview
-
- In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
- end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
- the data link. After the link has been established, the peer may be
- authenticated. Then, PPP must send NCP packets to choose and
- configure one or more network-layer protocols. Once each of the
- chosen network-layer protocols has been configured, datagrams from
- each network-layer protocol can be sent over the link.
-
- The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP
- or NCP packets close the link down, or until some external event
- occurs (an inactivity timer expires or network administrator
- intervention).
-
- 4.2. Phase Diagram
-
- In the process of configuring, maintaining and terminating the
- point-to-point link, the PPP link goes through several distinct
- phases:
-
- +------+ +-----------+ +--------------+
- | | UP | | OPENED | | SUCCESS/NONE
- | Dead |------->| Establish |---------->| Authenticate |--+
- | | | | | | |
- +------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ |
- ^ FAIL | FAIL | |
- +<--------------+ +----------+ |
- | | |
- | +-----------+ | +---------+ |
- | DOWN | | | CLOSING | | |
- +------------| Terminate |<---+<----------| Network |<-+
- | | | |
- +-----------+ +---------+
-
- 4.3. Link Dead (physical-layer not ready)
-
- The link necessarily begins and ends with this phase. When an
- external event (such as carrier detection or network administrator
- configuration) indicates that the physical-layer is ready to be used,
- PPP will proceed to the Link Establishment phase.
-
- During this phase, the LCP automaton (described below) will be in the
- Initial or Starting states. The transition to the Link Establishment
- phase will signal an Up event to the automaton.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 10]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Typically, a link will return to this phase automatically after
- the disconnection of a modem. In the case of a hard-wired line,
- this phase may be extremely short -- merely long enough to detect
- the presence of the device.
-
- 4.4. Link Establishment Phase
-
- The Link Control Protocol (LCP) is used to establish the connection
- through an exchange of Configure packets. This exchange is complete,
- and the LCP Opened state entered, once a Configure-Ack packet
- (described below) has been both sent and received. Any non-LCP
- packets received during this phase MUST be silently discarded.
-
- All Configuration Options are assumed to be at default values unless
- altered by the configuration exchange. See the section on LCP
- Configuration Options for further discussion.
-
- It is important to note that only Configuration Options which are
- independent of particular network-layer protocols are configured by
- LCP. Configuration of individual network-layer protocols is handled
- by separate Network Control Protocols (NCPs) during the Network-Layer
- Protocol phase.
-
- 4.5. Authentication Phase
-
- On some links it may be desirable to require a peer to authenticate
- itself before allowing network-layer protocol packets to be
- exchanged.
-
- By default, authentication is not necessary. If an implementation
- requires that the peer authenticate with some specific authentication
- protocol, then it MUST negotiate the use of that authentication
- protocol during Link Establishment phase.
-
- Authentication SHOULD take place as soon as possible after link
- establishment. However, link quality determination MAY occur
- concurrently. An implementation MUST NOT allow the exchange of link
- quality determination packets to delay authentication indefinitely.
-
- Advancement from the Authentication phase to the Network-Layer
- Protocol phase MUST NOT occur until the peer is successfully
- authenticated using the negotiated authentication protocol. In the
- event of failure to authenticate, PPP SHOULD proceed instead to the
- Link Termination phase.
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 11]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 4.6. Network-Layer Protocol Phase
-
- Once PPP has finished the previous phases, each network-layer
- protocol (such as IP) MUST be separately configured by the
- appropriate Network Control Protocol (NCP).
-
- Each NCP may be Opened and Closed at any time.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Because an implementation may initially use a significant amount
- of time for link quality determination, implementations SHOULD
- avoid fixed timeouts when waiting for their peers to configure a
- NCP.
-
- After a NCP has reached the Opened state, PPP will carry the
- corresponding network-layer protocol packets. Any network-layer
- protocol packets received when the corresponding NCP is not in the
- Opened state SHOULD be silently discarded.
-
- During this phase, link traffic consists of any possible combinations
- of LCP, NCP, and network-layer protocol packets. Any NCP or
- network-layer protocol packets received during any other phase SHOULD
- be silently discarded.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- There is an exception to the preceding paragraphs, due to the
- availability of the LCP Protocol-Reject (described below). While
- LCP is in the Opened state, any protocol packet which is
- unsupported by the implementation MUST be returned in a Protocol-
- Reject. Only supported protocols are silently discarded.
-
- 4.7. Link Termination Phase
-
- PPP may terminate the link at any time. This will usually be done at
- the request of a human user, but might happen because of a physical
- event such as the loss of carrier, authentication failure, link
- quality failure, or the expiration of an idle-period timer.
-
- LCP is used to close the link through an exchange of Terminate
- packets. When the link is closing, PPP informs the network-layer
- protocols so that they may take appropriate action.
-
- After the exchange of Terminate packets, the implementation SHOULD
- signal the physical-layer to disconnect in order to enforce the
- termination of the link, particularly in the case of an
- authentication failure. The sender of the Terminate-Request SHOULD
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 12]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- disconnect after receiving a Terminate-Ack, or after the Restart
- counter expires. The receiver of a Terminate-Request SHOULD wait for
- the peer to disconnect, and MUST NOT disconnect until at least one
- Restart time has passed after sending a Terminate-Ack. PPP SHOULD
- proceed to the Link Dead phase.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- The closing of the link by LCP is sufficient. There is no need
- for each NCP to send a flurry of Terminate packets. Conversely,
- the fact that a NCP has Closed is not sufficient reason to cause
- the termination of the PPP link, even if that NCP was the only
- currently NCP in the Opened state.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 13]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 5. The Option Negotiation Automaton
-
- The finite-state automaton is defined by events, actions and state
- transitions. Events include reception of external commands such as
- Open and Close, expiration of the Restart timer, and reception of
- packets from a peer. Actions include the starting of the Restart
- timer and transmission of packets to the peer.
-
- Some types of packets -- Configure-Naks and Configure-Rejects, or
- Code-Rejects and Protocol-Rejects, or Echo-Requests, Echo-Replies and
- Discard-Requests -- are not differentiated in the automaton
- descriptions. As will be described later, these packets do indeed
- serve different functions. However, they always cause the same
- transitions.
-
- Events Actions
-
- Up = lower layer is Up tlu = This-Layer-Up
- Down = lower layer is Down tld = This-Layer-Down
- Open = administrative Open tls = This-Layer-Start
- Close= administrative Close tlf = This-Layer-Finished
-
- TO+ = Timeout with counter > 0 irc = initialize restart
- counter
- TO- = Timeout with counter expired zrc = zero restart counter
-
- RCR+ = Receive-Configure-Request (Good) scr = Send-Configure-Request
- RCR- = Receive-Configure-Request (Bad)
- RCA = Receive-Configure-Ack sca = Send-Configure-Ack
- RCN = Receive-Configure-Nak/Rej scn = Send-Configure-Nak/Rej
-
- RTR = Receive-Terminate-Request str = Send-Terminate-Request
- RTA = Receive-Terminate-Ack sta = Send-Terminate-Ack
-
- RUC = Receive-Unknown-Code scj = Send-Code-Reject
- RXJ+ = Receive-Code-Reject (permitted)
- or Receive-Protocol-Reject
- RXJ- = Receive-Code-Reject (catastrophic)
- or Receive-Protocol-Reject
- RXR = Receive-Echo-Request ser = Send-Echo-Reply
- or Receive-Echo-Reply
- or Receive-Discard-Request
- - = illegal action
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 14]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 5.1. State Diagram
-
- The simplified state diagram which follows describes the sequence of
- events for reaching agreement on Configuration Options (opening the
- PPP link) and for later termination of the link.
-
- This diagram is not a complete representation of the automaton.
- Implementation MUST be done by consulting the actual state
- transition table.
-
- Events are in upper case. Actions are in lower case. For these
- purposes, the state machine is initially in the Closed state. Once
- the Opened state has been reached, both ends of the link have met the
- requirement of having both sent and received a Configure-Ack packet.
-
- RCR TO+
- +--sta-->+ +------->+
- | | | |
- +-------+ | RTA +-------+ | Close +-------+
- | |<-----+<------| |<-str-+<------| |
- |Closed | |Closing| |Opened |
- | | Open | | | |
- | |------+ | | | |
- +-------+ | +-------+ +-------+
- | ^
- | |
- | +-sca----------------->+
- | | ^
- RCN,TO+ V RCR+ | RCR- RCA | RCN,TO+
- +------->+ | +------->+ | +--scr-->+
- | | | | | | | |
- +-------+ | TO+ +-------+ | +-------+ |
- | |<-scr-+<------| |<-scn-+ | |<-----+
- | Req- | | Ack- | | Ack- |
- | Sent | RCA | Rcvd | | Sent |
- +-scn->| |------------->| | +-sca->| |
- | +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+
- | RCR- | | RCR+ | RCR+ | | RCR-
- | | +------------------------------->+<-------+ |
- | | |
- +<-------+<------------------------------------------------+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 15]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 5.2. State Transition Table
-
- The complete state transition table follows. States are indicated
- horizontally, and events are read vertically. State transitions and
- actions are represented in the form action/new-state. Multiple
- actions are separated by commas, and may continue on succeeding lines
- as space requires. The state may be followed by a letter, which
- indicates an explanatory footnote.
-
- Rationale:
-
- In previous versions of this table, a simplified non-deterministic
- finite-state automaton was used, with considerable detailed
- information specified in the semantics. This lead to
- interoperability problems from differing interpretations.
-
- This table functions similarly to the previous versions, with the
- up/down flags expanded to explicit states, and the active/passive
- paradigm eliminated. It is believed that this table interoperates
- with previous versions better than those versions themselves.
-
- | State
- | 0 1 2 3 4 5
- Events| Initial Starting Closed Stopped Closing Stopping
- ------+-----------------------------------------------------------
- Up | 2 irc,scr/6 - - - -
- Down | - - 0 tls/1 0 1
- Open | tls/1 1 irc,scr/6 3r 5r 5r
- Close| 0 0 2 2 4 4
- |
- TO+ | - - - - str/4 str/5
- TO- | - - - - tlf/2 tlf/3
- |
- RCR+ | - - sta/2 irc,scr,sca/8 4 5
- RCR- | - - sta/2 irc,scr,scn/6 4 5
- RCA | - - sta/2 sta/3 4 5
- RCN | - - sta/2 sta/3 4 5
- |
- RTR | - - sta/2 sta/3 sta/4 sta/5
- RTA | - - 2 3 tlf/2 tlf/3
- |
- RUC | - - scj/2 scj/3 scj/4 scj/5
- RXJ+ | - - 2 3 4 5
- RXJ- | - - tlf/2 tlf/3 tlf/2 tlf/3
- |
- RXR | - - 2 3 4 5
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 16]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- | State
- | 6 7 8 9
- Events| Req-Sent Ack-Rcvd Ack-Sent Opened
- ------+-----------------------------------------
- Up | - - - -
- Down | 1 1 1 tld/1
- Open | 6 7 8 9r
- Close|irc,str/4 irc,str/4 irc,str/4 tld,irc,str/4
- |
- TO+ | scr/6 scr/6 scr/8 -
- TO- | tlf/3p tlf/3p tlf/3p -
- |
- RCR+ | sca/8 sca,tlu/9 sca/8 tld,scr,sca/8
- RCR- | scn/6 scn/7 scn/6 tld,scr,scn/6
- RCA | irc/7 scr/6x irc,tlu/9 tld,scr/6x
- RCN |irc,scr/6 scr/6x irc,scr/8 tld,scr/6x
- |
- RTR | sta/6 sta/6 sta/6 tld,zrc,sta/5
- RTA | 6 6 8 tld,scr/6
- |
- RUC | scj/6 scj/7 scj/8 tld,scj,scr/6
- RXJ+ | 6 6 8 9
- RXJ- | tlf/3 tlf/3 tlf/3 tld,irc,str/5
- |
- RXR | 6 7 8 ser/9
-
- The states in which the Restart timer is running are identifiable by
- the presence of TO events. Only the Send-Configure-Request, Send-
- Terminate-Request and Zero-Restart-Counter actions start or re-start
- the Restart timer. The Restart timer SHOULD be stopped when
- transitioning from any state where the timer is running to a state
- where the timer is not running.
-
-
- [p] Passive option; see Stopped state discussion.
-
- [r] Restart option; see Open event discussion.
-
- [x] Crossed connection; see RCA event discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 17]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 5.3. States
-
- Following is a more detailed description of each automaton state.
-
- Initial
-
- In the Initial state, the lower layer is unavailable (Down), and
- no Open has occurred. The Restart timer is not running in the
- Initial state.
-
- Starting
-
- The Starting state is the Open counterpart to the Initial state.
- An administrative Open has been initiated, but the lower layer is
- still unavailable (Down). The Restart timer is not running in the
- Starting state.
-
- When the lower layer becomes available (Up), a Configure-Request
- is sent.
-
- Closed
-
- In the Closed state, the link is available (Up), but no Open has
- occurred. The Restart timer is not running in the Closed state.
-
- Upon reception of Configure-Request packets, a Terminate-Ack is
- sent. Terminate-Acks are silently discarded to avoid creating a
- loop.
-
- Stopped
-
- The Stopped state is the Open counterpart to the Closed state. It
- is entered when the automaton is waiting for a Down event after
- the This-Layer-Finished action, or after sending a Terminate-Ack.
- The Restart timer is not running in the Stopped state.
-
- Upon reception of Configure-Request packets, an appropriate
- response is sent. Upon reception of other packets, a Terminate-
- Ack is sent. Terminate-Acks are silently discarded to avoid
- creating a loop.
-
- Rationale:
-
- The Stopped state is a junction state for link termination,
- link configuration failure, and other automaton failure modes.
- These potentially separate states have been combined.
-
- There is a race condition between the Down event response (from
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 18]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- the This-Layer-Finished action) and the Receive-Configure-
- Request event. When a Configure-Request arrives before the
- Down event, the Down event will supercede by returning the
- automaton to the Starting state. This prevents attack by
- repetition.
-
- Implementation Option:
-
- After the peer fails to respond to Configure-Requests, an
- implementation MAY wait passively for the peer to send
- Configure-Requests. In this case, the This-Layer-Finished
- action is not used for the TO- event in states Req-Sent, Ack-
- Rcvd and Ack-Sent.
-
- This option is useful for dedicated circuits, or circuits which
- have no status signals available, but SHOULD NOT be used for
- switched circuits.
-
- Closing
-
- In the Closing state, an attempt is made to terminate the
- connection. A Terminate-Request has been sent and the Restart
- timer is running, but a Terminate-Ack has not yet been received.
-
- Upon reception of a Terminate-Ack, the Closed state is entered.
- Upon the expiration of the Restart timer, a new Terminate-Request
- is transmitted and the Restart timer is restarted. After the
- Restart timer has expired Max-Terminate times, this action may be
- skipped, and the Closed state may be entered.
-
- Stopping
-
- The Stopping state is the Open counterpart to the Closing state.
- A Terminate-Request has been sent and the Restart timer is
- running, but a Terminate-Ack has not yet been received.
-
- Rationale:
-
- The Stopping state provides a well defined opportunity to
- terminate a link before allowing new traffic. After the link
- has terminated, a new configuration may occur via the Stopped
- or Starting states.
-
- Request-Sent
-
- In the Request-Sent state an attempt is made to configure the
- connection. A Configure-Request has been sent and the Restart
- timer is running, but a Configure-Ack has not yet been received
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 19]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- nor has one been sent.
-
- Ack-Received
-
- In the Ack-Received state, a Configure-Request has been sent and a
- Configure-Ack has been received. The Restart timer is still
- running since a Configure-Ack has not yet been sent.
-
- Ack-Sent
-
- In the Ack-Sent state, a Configure-Request and a Configure-Ack
- have both been sent but a Configure-Ack has not yet been received.
- The Restart timer is always running in the Ack-Sent state.
-
- Opened
-
- In the Opened state, a Configure-Ack has been both sent and
- received. The Restart timer is not running in the Opened state.
-
- When entering the Opened state, the implementation SHOULD signal
- the upper layers that it is now Up. Conversely, when leaving the
- Opened state, the implementation SHOULD signal the upper layers
- that it is now Down.
-
- 5.4. Events
-
- Transitions and actions in the automaton are caused by events.
-
- Up
-
- The Up event occurs when a lower layer indicates that it is ready
- to carry packets. Typically, this event is used to signal LCP
- that the link is entering Link Establishment phase, or used to
- signal a NCP that the link is entering Network-Layer Protocol
- phase.
-
- Down
-
- The Down event occurs when a lower layer indicates that it is no
- longer ready to carry packets. Typically, this event is used to
- signal LCP that the link is entering Link Dead phase, or used to
- signal a NCP that the link is leaving Network-Layer Protocol
- phase.
-
- Open
-
- The Open event indicates that the link is administratively
- available for traffic; that is, the network administrator (human
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 20]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- or program) has indicated that the link is allowed to be Opened.
- When this event occurs, and the link is not in the Opened state,
- the automaton attempts to send configuration packets to the peer.
-
- If the automaton is not able to begin configuration (the lower
- layer is Down, or a previous Close event has not completed), the
- establishment of the link is automatically delayed.
-
- When a Terminate-Request is received, or other events occur which
- cause the link to become unavailable, the automaton will progress
- to a state where the link is ready to re-open. No additional
- administrative intervention should be necessary.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Experience has shown that users will execute an additional Open
- command when they want to renegotiate the link. Since this is
- not the meaning of the Open event, it is suggested that when an
- Open user command is executed in the Opened, Closing, Stopping,
- or Stopped states, the implementation issue a Down event,
- immediately followed by an Up event. This will cause the
- renegotiation of the link, without any harmful side effects.
-
- Close
-
- The Close event indicates that the link is not available for
- traffic; that is, the network administrator (human or program) has
- indicated that the link is not allowed to be Opened. When this
- event occurs, and the link is not in the Closed state, the
- automaton attempts to terminate the connection. Futher attempts
- to re-configure the link are denied until a new Open event occurs.
-
- Timeout (TO+,TO-)
-
- This event indicates the expiration of the Restart timer. The
- Restart timer is used to time responses to Configure-Request and
- Terminate-Request packets.
-
- The TO+ event indicates that the Restart counter continues to be
- greater than zero, which triggers the corresponding Configure-
- Request or Terminate-Request packet to be retransmitted.
-
- The TO- event indicates that the Restart counter is not greater
- than zero, and no more packets need to be retransmitted.
-
- Receive-Configure-Request (RCR+,RCR-)
-
- This event occurs when a Configure-Request packet is received from
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 21]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- the peer. The Configure-Request packet indicates the desire to
- open a connection and may specify Configuration Options. The
- Configure-Request packet is more fully described in a later
- section.
-
- The RCR+ event indicates that the Configure-Request was
- acceptable, and triggers the transmission of a corresponding
- Configure-Ack.
-
- The RCR- event indicates that the Configure-Request was
- unacceptable, and triggers the transmission of a corresponding
- Configure-Nak or Configure-Reject.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- These events may occur on a connection which is already in the
- Opened state. The implementation MUST be prepared to
- immediately renegotiate the Configuration Options.
-
- Receive-Configure-Ack (RCA)
-
- The Receive-Configure-Ack event occurs when a valid Configure-Ack
- packet is received from the peer. The Configure-Ack packet is a
- positive response to a Configure-Request packet. An out of
- sequence or otherwise invalid packet is silently discarded.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Since the correct packet has already been received before
- reaching the Ack-Rcvd or Opened states, it is extremely
- unlikely that another such packet will arrive. As specified,
- all invalid Ack/Nak/Rej packets are silently discarded, and do
- not affect the transitions of the automaton.
-
- However, it is not impossible that a correctly formed packet
- will arrive through a coincidentally-timed cross-connection.
- It is more likely to be the result of an implementation error.
- At the very least, this occurance should be logged.
-
- Receive-Configure-Nak/Rej (RCN)
-
- This event occurs when a valid Configure-Nak or Configure-Reject
- packet is received from the peer. The Configure-Nak and
- Configure-Reject packets are negative responses to a Configure-
- Request packet. An out of sequence or otherwise invalid packet is
- silently discarded.
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 22]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- Although the Configure-Nak and Configure-Reject cause the same
- state transition in the automaton, these packets have
- significantly different effects on the Configuration Options
- sent in the resulting Configure-Request packet.
-
- Receive-Terminate-Request (RTR)
-
- The Receive-Terminate-Request event occurs when a Terminate-
- Request packet is received. The Terminate-Request packet
- indicates the desire of the peer to close the connection.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- This event is not identical to the Close event (see above), and
- does not override the Open commands of the local network
- administrator. The implementation MUST be prepared to receive
- a new Configure-Request without network administrator
- intervention.
-
- Receive-Terminate-Ack (RTA)
-
- The Receive-Terminate-Ack event occurs when a Terminate-Ack packet
- is received from the peer. The Terminate-Ack packet is usually a
- response to a Terminate-Request packet. The Terminate-Ack packet
- may also indicate that the peer is in Closed or Stopped states,
- and serves to re-synchronize the link configuration.
-
- Receive-Unknown-Code (RUC)
-
- The Receive-Unknown-Code event occurs when an un-interpretable
- packet is received from the peer. A Code-Reject packet is sent in
- response.
-
- Receive-Code-Reject, Receive-Protocol-Reject (RXJ+,RXJ-)
-
- This event occurs when a Code-Reject or a Protocol-Reject packet
- is received from the peer.
-
- The RXJ+ event arises when the rejected value is acceptable, such
- as a Code-Reject of an extended code, or a Protocol-Reject of a
- NCP. These are within the scope of normal operation. The
- implementation MUST stop sending the offending packet type.
-
- The RXJ- event arises when the rejected value is catastrophic,
- such as a Code-Reject of Configure-Request, or a Protocol-Reject
- of LCP! This event communicates an unrecoverable error that
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 23]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- terminates the connection.
-
- Receive-Echo-Request, Receive-Echo-Reply, Receive-Discard-Request
- (RXR)
-
- This event occurs when an Echo-Request, Echo-Reply or Discard-
- Request packet is received from the peer. The Echo-Reply packet
- is a response to a Echo-Request packet. There is no reply to an
- Echo-Reply or Discard-Request packet.
-
- 5.5. Actions
-
- Actions in the automaton are caused by events and typically indicate
- the transmission of packets and/or the starting or stopping of the
- Restart timer.
-
- Illegal-Event (-)
-
- This indicates an event that SHOULD NOT occur. The implementation
- probably has an internal error.
-
- This-Layer-Up (tlu)
-
- This action indicates to the upper layers that the automaton is
- entering the Opened state.
-
- Typically, this action MAY be used by the LCP to signal the Up
- event to a NCP, Authentication Protocol, or Link Quality Protocol,
- or MAY be used by a NCP to indicate that the link is available for
- its traffic.
-
- This-Layer-Down (tld)
-
- This action indicates to the upper layers that the automaton is
- leaving the Opened state.
-
- Typically, this action MAY be used by the LCP to signal the Down
- event to a NCP, Authentication Protocol, or Link Quality Protocol,
- or MAY be used by a NCP to indicate that the link is no longer
- available for its traffic.
-
- This-Layer-Start (tls)
-
- This action indicates to the lower layers that the automaton is
- entering the Starting state, and the lower layer is needed for the
- link. The lower layer SHOULD respond with an Up event when the
- lower layer is available.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 24]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- This action is highly implementation dependent.
-
- This-Layer-Finished (tlf)
-
- This action indicates to the lower layers that the automaton is
- entering the Stopped or Closed states, and the lower layer is no
- longer needed for the link. The lower layer SHOULD respond with a
- Down event when the lower layer has terminated.
-
- Typically, this action MAY be used by the LCP to advance to the
- Link Dead phase, or MAY be used by a NCP to indicate to the LCP
- that the link may terminate when there are no other NCPs open.
-
- This action is highly implementation dependent.
-
- Initialize-Restart-Counter (irc)
-
- This action sets the Restart counter to the appropriate value
- (Max-Terminate or Max-Configure). The counter is decremented for
- each transmission, including the first.
-
- Zero-Restart-Counter (zrc)
-
- This action sets the Restart counter to zero.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- This action enables the FSA to pause before proceeding to the
- desired final state. In addition to zeroing the Restart
- counter, the implementation MUST set the timeout period to an
- appropriate value.
-
- Send-Configure-Request (scr)
-
- The Send-Configure-Request action transmits a Configure-Request
- packet. This indicates the desire to open a connection with a
- specified set of Configuration Options. The Restart timer is
- started when the Configure-Request packet is transmitted, to guard
- against packet loss. The Restart counter is decremented each time
- a Configure-Request is sent.
-
- Send-Configure-Ack (sca)
-
- The Send-Configure-Ack action transmits a Configure-Ack packet.
- This acknowledges the reception of a Configure-Request packet with
- an acceptable set of Configuration Options.
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 25]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Send-Configure-Nak (scn)
-
- The Send-Configure-Nak action transmits a Configure-Nak or
- Configure-Reject packet, as appropriate. This negative response
- reports the reception of a Configure-Request packet with an
- unacceptable set of Configuration Options. Configure-Nak packets
- are used to refuse a Configuration Option value, and to suggest a
- new, acceptable value. Configure-Reject packets are used to
- refuse all negotiation about a Configuration Option, typically
- because it is not recognized or implemented. The use of
- Configure-Nak versus Configure-Reject is more fully described in
- the section on LCP Packet Formats.
-
- Send-Terminate-Request (str)
-
- The Send-Terminate-Request action transmits a Terminate-Request
- packet. This indicates the desire to close a connection. The
- Restart timer is started when the Terminate-Request packet is
- transmitted, to guard against packet loss. The Restart counter is
- decremented each time a Terminate-Request is sent.
-
- Send-Terminate-Ack (sta)
-
- The Send-Terminate-Ack action transmits a Terminate-Ack packet.
- This acknowledges the reception of a Terminate-Request packet or
- otherwise serves to synchronize the state machines.
-
- Send-Code-Reject (scj)
-
- The Send-Code-Reject action transmits a Code-Reject packet. This
- indicates the reception of an unknown type of packet.
-
- Send-Echo-Reply (ser)
-
- The Send-Echo-Reply action transmits an Echo-Reply packet. This
- acknowledges the reception of an Echo-Request packet.
-
- 5.6. Loop Avoidance
-
- The protocol makes a reasonable attempt at avoiding Configuration
- Option negotiation loops. However, the protocol does NOT guarantee
- that loops will not happen. As with any negotiation, it is possible
- to configure two PPP implementations with conflicting policies that
- will never converge. It is also possible to configure policies which
- do converge, but which take significant time to do so. Implementors
- should keep this in mind and should implement loop detection
- mechanisms or higher level timeouts.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 26]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 5.7. Counters and Timers
-
- Restart Timer
-
- There is one special timer used by the automaton. The Restart timer
- is used to time transmissions of Configure-Request and Terminate-
- Request packets. Expiration of the Restart timer causes a Timeout
- event, and retransmission of the corresponding Configure-Request or
- Terminate-Request packet. The Restart timer MUST be configurable,
- but MAY default to three (3) seconds.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- The Restart timer SHOULD be based on the speed of the link. The
- default value is designed for low speed (19,200 bps or less), high
- switching latency links (typical telephone lines). Higher speed
- links, or links with low switching latency, SHOULD have
- correspondingly faster retransmission times.
-
- Max-Terminate
-
- There is one required restart counter for Terminate-Requests. Max-
- Terminate indicates the number of Terminate-Request packets sent
- without receiving a Terminate-Ack before assuming that the peer is
- unable to respond. Max-Terminate MUST be configurable, but should
- default to two (2) transmissions.
-
- Max-Configure
-
- A similar counter is recommended for Configure-Requests. Max-
- Configure indicates the number of Configure-Request packets sent
- without receiving a valid Configure-Ack, Configure-Nak or Configure-
- Reject before assuming that the peer is unable to respond. Max-
- Configure MUST be configurable, but should default to ten (10)
- transmissions.
-
- Max-Failure
-
- A related counter is recommended for Configure-Nak. Max-Failure
- indicates the number of Configure-Nak packets sent without sending a
- Configure-Ack before assuming that configuration is not converging.
- Any further Configure-Nak packets are converted to Configure-Reject
- packets. Max-Failure MUST be configurable, but should default to ten
- (10) transmissions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 27]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6. LCP Packet Formats
-
- There are three classes of LCP packets:
-
- 1. Link Configuration packets used to establish and configure a
- link (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack, Configure-Nak and
- Configure-Reject).
-
- 2. Link Termination packets used to terminate a link (Terminate-
- Request and Terminate-Ack).
-
- 3. Link Maintenance packets used to manage and debug a link
- (Code-Reject, Protocol-Reject, Echo-Request, Echo-Reply, and
- Discard-Request).
-
- This document describes Version 1 of the Link Control Protocol. In
- the interest of simplicity, there is no version field in the LCP
- packet. If a new version of LCP is necessary in the future, the
- intention is that a new Data Link Layer Protocol field value will be
- used to differentiate Version 1 LCP from all other versions. A
- correctly functioning Version 1 LCP implementation will always
- respond to unknown Protocols (including other versions) with an
- easily recognizable Version 1 packet, thus providing a deterministic
- fallback mechanism for implementations of other versions.
-
- Regardless of which Configuration Options are enabled, all LCP Link
- Configuration, Link Termination, and Code-Reject packets (codes 1
- through 7) are always sent in the full, standard form, as if no
- Configuration Options were enabled. This ensures that LCP
- Configure-Request packets are always recognizable even when one end
- of the link mistakenly believes the link to be open.
-
- Exactly one Link Control Protocol packet is encapsulated in the
- Information field of PPP Data Link Layer frames where the Protocol
- field indicates type hex c021 (Link Control Protocol).
-
- A summary of the Link Control Protocol packet format is shown below.
- The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 28]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Code
-
- The Code field is one octet and identifies the kind of LCP packet.
- When a packet is received with an invalid Code field, a Code-
- Reject packet is transmitted.
-
- The most up-to-date values of the LCP Code field are specified in
- the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [11]. Current values are
- assigned as follows:
-
- 1 Configure-Request
- 2 Configure-Ack
- 3 Configure-Nak
- 4 Configure-Reject
- 5 Terminate-Request
- 6 Terminate-Ack
- 7 Code-Reject
- 8 Protocol-Reject
- 9 Echo-Request
- 10 Echo-Reply
- 11 Discard-Request
- 12 RESERVED
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching requests
- and replies. When a packet is received with an invalid Identifier
- field, the packet is silently discarded.
-
- Length
-
- The Length field is two octets and indicates the length of the LCP
- packet including the Code, Identifier, Length and Data fields.
- Octets outside the range of the Length field should be treated as
- Data Link Layer padding and should be ignored on reception. When
- a packet is received with an invalid Length field, the packet is
- silently discarded.
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets as indicated by the Length
- field. The format of the Data field is determined by the Code
- field.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 29]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6.1. Configure-Request
-
- Description
-
- A LCP implementation wishing to open a connection MUST transmit a
- LCP packet with the Code field set to 1 (Configure-Request) and
- the Options field filled with any desired changes to the default
- link Configuration Options.
-
- Upon reception of a Configure-Request, an appropriate reply MUST
- be transmitted.
-
- A summary of the Configure-Request packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Options ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 1 for Configure-Request.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field SHOULD be changed on each transmission. On
- reception, the Identifier field should be copied into the
- Identifier field of the appropriate reply packet.
-
- Options
-
- The options field is variable in length and contains the list of
- zero or more Configuration Options that the sender desires to
- negotiate. All Configuration Options are always negotiated
- simultaneously. The format of Configuration Options is further
- described in a later section.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 30]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6.2. Configure-Ack
-
- Description
-
- If every Configuration Option received in a Configure-Request is
- both recognizable and acceptable, then a LCP implementation should
- transmit a LCP packet with the Code field set to 2 (Configure-
- Ack), the Identifier field copied from the received Configure-
- Request, and the Options field copied from the received
- Configure-Request. The acknowledged Configuration Options MUST
- NOT be reordered or modified in any way.
-
- On reception of a Configure-Ack, the Identifier field must match
- that of the last transmitted Configure-Request. Additionally, the
- Configuration Options in a Configure-Ack must exactly match those
- of the last transmitted Configure-Request. Invalid packets are
- silently discarded.
-
- A summary of the Configure-Ack packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Options ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 2 for Configure-Ack.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is a copy of the Identifier field of the
- Configure-Request which caused this Configure-Ack.
-
- Options
-
- The Options field is variable in length and contains the list of
- zero or more Configuration Options that the sender is
- acknowledging. All Configuration Options are always acknowledged
- simultaneously.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 31]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6.3. Configure-Nak
-
- Description
-
- If every element of the received Configuration Options is
- recognizable but some are not acceptable, then a LCP
- implementation should transmit a LCP packet with the Code field
- set to 3 (Configure-Nak), the Identifier field copied from the
- received Configure-Request, and the Options field filled with only
- the unacceptable Configuration Options from the Configure-Request.
- All acceptable Configuration Options are filtered out of the
- Configure-Nak, but otherwise the Configuration Options from the
- Configure-Request MUST NOT be reordered.
-
- Each of the Nak'd Configuration Options MUST be modified to a
- value acceptable to the Configure-Nak sender. Options which have
- no value fields (boolean options) use the Configure-Reject reply
- instead.
-
- Finally, an implementation may be configured to request the
- negotiation of a specific option. If that option is not listed,
- then that option may be appended to the list of Nak'd
- Configuration Options in order to request the peer to list that
- option in its next Configure-Request packet. Any value fields for
- the option MUST indicate values acceptable to the Configure-Nak
- sender.
-
- On reception of a Configure-Nak, the Identifier field must match
- that of the last transmitted Configure-Request. Invalid packets
- are silently discarded.
-
- Reception of a valid Configure-Nak indicates that a new
- Configure-Request MAY be sent with the Configuration Options
- modified as specified in the Configure-Nak.
-
- Some Configuration Options have a variable length. Since the
- Nak'd Option has been modified by the peer, the implementation
- MUST be able to handle an Option length which is different from
- the original Configure-Request.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 32]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- A summary of the Configure-Nak packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Options ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 3 for Configure-Nak.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is a copy of the Identifier field of the
- Configure-Request which caused this Configure-Nak.
-
- Options
-
- The Options field is variable in length and contains the list of
- zero or more Configuration Options that the sender is Nak'ing.
- All Configuration Options are always Nak'd simultaneously.
-
-
- 6.4. Configure-Reject
-
- Description
-
- If some Configuration Options received in a Configure-Request are
- not recognizable or are not acceptable for negotiation (as
- configured by a network administrator), then a LCP implementation
- should transmit a LCP packet with the Code field set to 4
- (Configure-Reject), the Identifier field copied from the received
- Configure-Request, and the Options field filled with only the
- unacceptable Configuration Options from the Configure-Request.
- All recognizable and negotiable Configuration Options are filtered
- out of the Configure-Reject, but otherwise the Configuration
- Options MUST NOT be reordered or modified in any way.
-
- On reception of a Configure-Reject, the Identifier field must
- match that of the last transmitted Configure-Request.
- Additionally, the Configuration Options in a Configure-Reject must
- be a proper subset of those in the last transmitted Configure-
- Request. Invalid packets are silently discarded.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 33]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Reception of a valid Configure-Reject indicates that a new
- Configure-Request SHOULD be sent which does not include any of the
- Configuration Options listed in the Configure-Reject.
-
- A summary of the Configure-Reject packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Options ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 4 for Configure-Reject.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is a copy of the Identifier field of the
- Configure-Request which caused this Configure-Reject.
-
- Options
-
- The Options field is variable in length and contains the list of
- zero or more Configuration Options that the sender is rejecting.
- All Configuration Options are always rejected simultaneously.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 34]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6.5. Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack
-
- Description
-
- LCP includes Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack Codes in order to
- provide a mechanism for closing a connection.
-
- A LCP implementation wishing to close a connection should transmit
- a LCP packet with the Code field set to 5 (Terminate-Request) and
- the Data field filled with any desired data. Terminate-Request
- packets should continue to be sent until Terminate-Ack is
- received, the lower layer indicates that it has gone down, or a
- sufficiently large number have been transmitted such that the peer
- is down with reasonable certainty.
-
- Upon reception of a Terminate-Request, a LCP packet MUST be
- transmitted with the Code field set to 6 (Terminate-Ack), the
- Identifier field copied from the Terminate-Request packet, and the
- Data field filled with any desired data.
-
- Reception of an unelicited Terminate-Ack indicates that the peer
- is in the Closed or Stopped states, or is otherwise in need of
- re-negotiation.
-
- A summary of the Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack packet formats
- is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 5 for Terminate-Request;
-
- 6 for Terminate-Ack.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching requests
- and replies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 35]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and contains uninterpreted
- data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
- value and may be of any length from zero to the peer's established
- maximum Information field length minus four.
-
-
- 6.6. Code-Reject
-
- Description
-
- Reception of a LCP packet with an unknown Code indicates that one
- of the communicating LCP implementations is faulty or incomplete.
- This error MUST be reported back to the sender of the unknown Code
- by transmitting a LCP packet with the Code field set to 7 (Code-
- Reject), and the inducing packet copied to the Rejected-
- Information field.
-
- Upon reception of a Code-Reject, the implementation SHOULD report
- the error, since it is unlikely that the situation can be
- rectified automatically.
-
- A summary of the Code-Reject packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Rejected-Packet ...
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 7 for Code-Reject.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and is for use by the
- transmitter.
-
- Rejected-Information
-
- The Rejected-Information field contains a copy of the LCP packet
- which is being rejected. It begins with the Information field,
- and does not include any PPP Data Link Layer headers nor the FCS.
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 36]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- The Rejected-Information MUST be truncated to comply with the
- peer's established maximum Information field length.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 37]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 6.7. Protocol-Reject
-
- Description
-
- Reception of a PPP frame with an unknown Data Link Layer Protocol
- indicates that the peer is attempting to use a protocol which is
- unsupported. This usually occurs when the peer attempts to
- configure a new protocol. If the LCP state machine is in the
- Opened state, then this error MUST be reported back to the peer by
- transmitting a LCP packet with the Code field set to 8 (Protocol-
- Reject), the Rejected-Protocol field set to the received Protocol,
- and the inducing packet copied to the Rejected-Information field.
-
- Upon reception of a Protocol-Reject, a LCP implementation SHOULD
- stop transmitting frames of the indicated protocol.
-
- Protocol-Reject packets may only be sent in the LCP Opened state.
- Protocol-Reject packets received in any state other than the LCP
- Opened state SHOULD be silently discarded.
-
- A summary of the Protocol-Reject packet format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Rejected-Protocol | Rejected-Information ...
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 8 for Protocol-Reject.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and is for use by the
- transmitter.
-
- Rejected-Protocol
-
- The Rejected-Protocol field is two octets and contains the
- Protocol of the Data Link Layer frame which is being rejected.
-
- Rejected-Information
-
- The Rejected-Information field contains a copy from the frame
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 38]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- which is being rejected. It begins with the Information field,
- and does not include any PPP Data Link Layer headers nor the FCS.
- The Rejected-Information MUST be truncated to comply with the
- peer's established maximum Information field length.
-
-
- 6.8. Echo-Request and Echo-Reply
-
- Description
-
- LCP includes Echo-Request and Echo-Reply Codes in order to provide
- a Data Link Layer loopback mechanism for use in exercising both
- directions of the link. This is useful as an aid in debugging,
- link quality determination, performance testing, and for numerous
- other functions.
-
- An Echo-Request sender transmits a LCP packet with the Code field
- set to 9 (Echo-Request), the Identifier field set, the local
- Magic-Number inserted, and the Data field filled with any desired
- data, up to but not exceeding the peer's established maximum
- Information field length minus eight.
-
- Upon reception of an Echo-Request, a LCP packet MUST be
- transmitted with the Code field set to 10 (Echo-Reply), the
- Identifier field copied from the received Echo-Request, the local
- Magic-Number inserted, and the Data field copied from the Echo-
- Request, truncating as necessary to avoid exceeding the peer's
- established maximum Information field length.
-
- Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packets may only be sent in the LCP
- Opened state. Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packets received in any
- state other than the LCP Opened state SHOULD be silently
- discarded.
-
- A summary of the Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packet formats is shown
- below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Magic-Number |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 39]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Code
-
- 9 for Echo-Request;
-
- 10 for Echo-Reply.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching Echo-
- Requests and Echo-Replies.
-
- Magic-Number
-
- The Magic-Number field is four octets and aids in detecting links
- which are in the looped-back condition. Unless modified by a
- Configuration Option, the Magic-Number MUST be transmitted as zero
- and MUST be ignored on reception. See the Magic-Number
- Configuration Option for further explanation.
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and contains uninterpreted
- data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
- value and may be of any length from zero to the peer's established
- maximum Information field length minus eight.
-
-
- 6.9. Discard-Request
-
- Description
-
- LCP includes a Discard-Request Code in order to provide a Data
- Link Layer data sink mechanism for use in exercising the local to
- remote direction of the link. This is useful as an aid in
- debugging, performance testing, and for numerous other functions.
-
- A discard sender transmits a LCP packet with the Code field set to
- 11 (Discard-Request) the Identifier field set, the local Magic-
- Number inserted, and the Data field filled with any desired data,
- up to but not exceeding the peer's established maximum Information
- field length minus eight.
-
- A discard receiver MUST simply throw away an Discard-Request that
- it receives.
-
- Discard-Request packets may only be sent in the LCP Opened state.
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 40]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- A summary of the Discard-Request packet formats is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Code | Identifier | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Magic-Number |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Code
-
- 11 for Discard-Request.
-
- Identifier
-
- The Identifier field is one octet and is for use by the Discard-
- Request transmitter.
-
- Magic-Number
-
- The Magic-Number field is four octets and aids in detecting links
- which are in the looped-back condition. Unless modified by a
- configuration option, the Magic-Number MUST be transmitted as zero
- and MUST be ignored on reception. See the Magic-Number
- Configuration Option for further explanation.
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and contains uninterpreted
- data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
- value and may be of any length from zero to the peer's established
- maximum Information field length minus four.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 41]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7. LCP Configuration Options
-
- LCP Configuration Options allow modifications to the standard
- characteristics of a point-to-point link to be negotiated.
- Negotiable modifications include such things as the maximum receive
- unit, async control character mapping, the link authentication
- method, etc. If a Configuration Option is not included in a
- Configure-Request packet, the default value for that Configuration
- Option is assumed.
-
- The end of the list of Configuration Options is indicated by the
- length of the LCP packet.
-
- Unless otherwise specified, each Configuration Option is not listed
- more than once in a Configuration Options list. Some Configuration
- Options MAY be listed more than once. The effect of this is
- Configuration Option specific and is specified by each such
- Configuration Option.
-
- Also unless otherwise specified, all Configuration Options apply in a
- half-duplex fashion. When negotiated, they apply to only one
- direction of the link, typically in the receive direction when
- interpreted from the point of view of the Configure-Request sender.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 42]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.1. Format
-
- A summary of the Configuration Option format is shown below. The
- fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 0 1
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- The Type field is one octet and indicates the type of
- Configuration Option. The most up-to-date values of the LCP
- Option Type field are specified in the most recent "Assigned
- Numbers" RFC [11]. Current values are assigned as follows:
-
- 1 Maximum-Receive-Unit
- 2 Async-Control-Character-Map
- 3 Authentication-Protocol
- 4 Quality-Protocol
- 5 Magic-Number
- 6 RESERVED
- 7 Protocol-Field-Compression
- 8 Address-and-Control-Field-Compression
-
- Length
-
- The Length field is one octet and indicates the length of this
- Configuration Option including the Type, Length and Data fields.
- If a negotiable Configuration Option is received in a Configure-
- Request but with an invalid Length, a Configure-Nak SHOULD be
- transmitted which includes the desired Configuration Option with
- an appropriate Length and Data.
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and indicates the value or
- other information for this Configuration Option. The format and
- length of the Data field is determined by the Type and Length
- fields.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 43]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.2. Maximum-Receive-Unit
-
- Description
-
- This Configuration Option may be sent to inform the peer that the
- implementation can receive larger frames, or to request that the
- peer send smaller frames. If smaller frames are requested, an
- implementation MUST still be able to receive 1500 octet frames in
- case link synchronization is lost.
-
- A summary of the Maximum-Receive-Unit Configuration Option format is
- shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Maximum-Receive-Unit |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 1
-
- Length
-
- 4
-
- Maximum-Receive-Unit
-
- The Maximum-Receive-Unit field is two octets and indicates the new
- maximum receive unit. The Maximum-Receive-Unit covers only the
- Data Link Layer Information field. It does not include the
- header, padding, FCS, nor any transparency bits or bytes.
-
- Default
-
- 1500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 44]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.3. Async-Control-Character-Map
-
- Description
-
- This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of
- control character mapping on asynchronous links. By default, PPP
- maps all control characters into an appropriate two character
- sequence. However, it is rarely necessary to map all control
- characters and often it is unnecessary to map any characters. A
- PPP implementation may use this Configuration Option to inform the
- peer which control characters must remain mapped and which control
- characters need not remain mapped when the peer sends them. The
- peer may still send these control characters in mapped format if
- it is necessary because of constraints at the peer.
-
- There may be some use of synchronous-to-asynchronous converters
- (some built into modems) in Point-to-Point links resulting in a
- synchronous PPP implementation on one end of a link and an
- asynchronous implementation on the other. It is the
- responsibility of the converter to do all mapping conversions
- during operation. To enable this functionality, synchronous PPP
- implementations MUST always accept a Async-Control-Character-Map
- Configuration Option (it MUST always respond to an LCP Configure-
- Request specifying this Configuration Option with an LCP
- Configure-Ack). However, acceptance of this Configuration Option
- does not imply that the synchronous implementation will do any
- character mapping, since synchronous PPP uses bit-stuffing rather
- than character-stuffing. Instead, all such character mapping will
- be performed by the asynchronous-to-synchronous converter.
-
- A summary of the Async-Control-Character-Map Configuration Option
- format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to
- right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Async-Control-Character-Map
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- ACCM (cont) |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 45]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Length
-
- 6
-
- Async-Control-Character-Map
-
- The Async-Control-Character-Map field is four octets and indicates
- the new async control character map. The map is encoded in big-
- endian fashion where each numbered bit corresponds to the ASCII
- control character of the same value. If the bit is cleared to
- zero, then that ASCII control character need not be mapped. If
- the bit is set to one, then that ASCII control character must
- remain mapped. E.g., if bit 19 is set to zero, then the ASCII
- control character 19 (DC3, Control-S) may be sent in the clear.
-
- Note: The bit ordering of the map is as described in section
- 3.1, Most Significant Bit to Least Significant Bit. The least
- significant bit of the least significant octet (the final octet
- transmitted) is numbered bit 0, and would map to the ASCII
- control character NUL.
-
- Default
-
- All ones (0xffffffff).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 46]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.4. Authentication-Protocol
-
- Description
-
- On some links it may be desirable to require a peer to
- authenticate itself before allowing network-layer protocol packets
- to be exchanged. This Configuration Option provides a way to
- negotiate the use of a specific authentication protocol. By
- default, authentication is not necessary.
-
- An implementation SHOULD NOT include multiple Authentication-
- Protocol Configuration Options in its Configure-Request packets.
- Instead, it SHOULD attempt to configure the most desirable
- protocol first. If that protocol is Rejected, then the
- implementation could attempt the next most desirable protocol in
- the next Configure-Request.
-
- An implementation receiving a Configure-Request specifying
- Authentication-Protocols MAY choose at most one of the negotiable
- authentication protocols and MUST send a Configure-Reject
- including the other specified authentication protocols. The
- implementation MAY reject all of the proposed authentication
- protocols.
-
- If an implementation sends a Configure-Ack with this Configuration
- Option, then it is agreeing to authenticate with the specified
- protocol. An implementation receiving a Configure-Ack with this
- Configuration Option SHOULD expect the peer to authenticate with
- the acknowledged protocol.
-
- There is no requirement that authentication be full duplex or that
- the same protocol be used in both directions. It is perfectly
- acceptable for different protocols to be used in each direction.
- This will, of course, depend on the specific protocols negotiated.
-
- A summary of the Authentication-Protocol Configuration Option format
- is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Authentication-Protocol |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 47]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Type
-
- 3
-
- Length
-
- >= 4
-
- Authentication-Protocol
-
- The Authentication-Protocol field is two octets and indicates the
- authentication protocol desired. Values for this field are always
- the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field values for that
- same authentication protocol.
-
- The most up-to-date values of the Authentication-Protocol field
- are specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [11].
- Current values are assigned as follows:
-
- Value (in hex) Protocol
-
- c023 Password Authentication Protocol
- c223 Challenge Handshake Authentication
- Protocol
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional data
- as determined by the particular protocol.
-
- Default
-
- No authentication protocol necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 48]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.5. Quality-Protocol
-
- Description
-
- On some links it may be desirable to determine when, and how
- often, the link is dropping data. This process is called link
- quality monitoring.
-
- This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a
- specific protocol for link quality monitoring. By default, link
- quality monitoring is disabled.
-
- There is no requirement that quality monitoring be full duplex or
- that the same protocol be used in both directions. It is
- perfectly acceptable for different protocols to be used in each
- direction. This will, of course, depend on the specific protocols
- negotiated.
-
- A summary of the Quality-Protocol Configuration Option format is
- shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Quality-Protocol |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Data ...
- +-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 4
-
- Length
-
- >= 4
-
- Quality-Protocol
-
- The Quality-Protocol field is two octets and indicates the link
- quality monitoring protocol desired. Values for this field are
- always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field values
- for that same monitoring protocol.
-
- The most up-to-date values of the Quality-Protocol field are
- specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [11]. Current
- values are assigned as follows:
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 49]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Value (in hex) Protocol
-
- c025 Link Quality Report
-
- Data
-
- The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional data
- as determined by the particular protocol.
-
- Default
-
- None
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 50]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.6. Magic-Number
-
- Description
-
- This Configuration Option provides a way to detect looped-back
- links and other Data Link Layer anomalies. This Configuration
- Option MAY be required by some other Configuration Options such as
- the Monitoring-Protocol Configuration Option.
-
- Before this Configuration Option is requested, an implementation
- must choose its Magic-Number. It is recommended that the Magic-
- Number be chosen in the most random manner possible in order to
- guarantee with very high probability that an implementation will
- arrive at a unique number. A good way to choose a unique random
- number is to start with an unique seed. Suggested sources of
- uniqueness include machine serial numbers, other network hardware
- addresses, time-of-day clocks, etc. Particularly good random
- number seeds are precise measurements of the inter-arrival time of
- physical events such as packet reception on other connected
- networks, server response time, or the typing rate of a human
- user. It is also suggested that as many sources as possible be
- used simultaneously.
-
- When a Configure-Request is received with a Magic-Number
- Configuration Option, the received Magic-Number is compared with
- the Magic-Number of the last Configure-Request sent to the peer.
- If the two Magic-Numbers are different, then the link is not
- looped-back, and the Magic-Number should be acknowledged. If the
- two Magic-Numbers are equal, then it is possible, but not certain,
- that the link is looped-back and that this Configure-Request is
- actually the one last sent. To determine this, a Configure-Nak
- should be sent specifying a different Magic-Number value. A new
- Configure-Request should not be sent to the peer until normal
- processing would cause it to be sent (i.e., until a Configure-Nak
- is received or the Restart timer runs out).
-
- Reception of a Configure-Nak with a Magic-Number different from
- that of the last Configure-Nak sent to the peer proves that a link
- is not looped-back, and indicates a unique Magic-Number. If the
- Magic-Number is equal to the one sent in the last Configure-Nak,
- the possibility of a looped-back link is increased, and a new
- Magic-Number should be chosen. In either case, a new Configure-
- Request should be sent with the new Magic-Number.
-
- If the link is indeed looped-back, this sequence (transmit
- Configure-Request, receive Configure-Request, transmit Configure-
- Nak, receive Configure-Nak) will repeat over and over again. If
- the link is not looped-back, this sequence might occur a few
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 51]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- times, but it is extremely unlikely to occur repeatedly. More
- likely, the Magic-Numbers chosen at either end will quickly
- diverge, terminating the sequence. The following table shows the
- probability of collisions assuming that both ends of the link
- select Magic-Numbers with a perfectly uniform distribution:
-
- Number of Collisions Probability
- -------------------- ---------------------
- 1 1/2**32 = 2.3 E-10
- 2 1/2**32**2 = 5.4 E-20
- 3 1/2**32**3 = 1.3 E-29
-
- Good sources of uniqueness or randomness are required for this
- divergence to occur. If a good source of uniqueness cannot be
- found, it is recommended that this Configuration Option not be
- enabled; Configure-Requests with the option SHOULD NOT be
- transmitted and any Magic-Number Configuration Options which the
- peer sends SHOULD be either acknowledged or rejected. In this
- case, loop-backs cannot be reliably detected by the
- implementation, although they may still be detectable by the peer.
-
- If an implementation does transmit a Configure-Request with a
- Magic-Number Configuration Option, then it MUST NOT respond with a
- Configure-Reject if its peer also transmits a Configure-Request
- with a Magic-Number Configuration Option. That is, if an
- implementation desires to use Magic Numbers, then it MUST also
- allow its peer to do so. If an implementation does receive a
- Configure-Reject in response to a Configure-Request, it can only
- mean that the link is not looped-back, and that its peer will not
- be using Magic-Numbers. In this case, an implementation should
- act as if the negotiation had been successful (as if it had
- instead received a Configure-Ack).
-
- The Magic-Number also may be used to detect looped-back links
- during normal operation as well as during Configuration Option
- negotiation. All LCP Echo-Request, Echo-Reply, and Discard-
- Request packets have a Magic-Number field which MUST normally be
- zero, and MUST normally be ignored on reception. If Magic-Number
- has been successfully negotiated, an implementation MUST transmit
- these packets with the Magic-Number field set to its negotiated
- Magic-Number.
-
- The Magic-Number field of these packets SHOULD be inspected on
- reception. All received Magic-Number fields MUST be equal to
- either zero or the peer's unique Magic-Number, depending on
- whether or not the peer negotiated one.
-
- Reception of a Magic-Number field equal to the negotiated local
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 52]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Magic-Number indicates a looped-back link. Reception of a Magic-
- Number other than the negotiated local Magic-Number or the peer's
- negotiated Magic-Number, or zero if the peer didn't negotiate one,
- indicates a link which has been (mis)configured for communications
- with a different peer.
-
- Procedures for recovery from either case are unspecified and may
- vary from implementation to implementation. A somewhat
- pessimistic procedure is to assume a LCP Down event. A further
- Open event will begin the process of re-establishing the link,
- which can't complete until the loop-back condition is terminated
- and Magic-Numbers are successfully negotiated. A more optimistic
- procedure (in the case of a loop-back) is to begin transmitting
- LCP Echo-Request packets until an appropriate Echo-Reply is
- received, indicating a termination of the loop-back condition.
-
- A summary of the Magic-Number Configuration Option format is shown
- below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
-
- 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
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Magic-Number
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- Magic-Number (cont) |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 5
-
- Length
-
- 6
-
- Magic-Number
-
- The Magic-Number field is four octets and indicates a number which
- is very likely to be unique to one end of the link. A Magic-
- Number of zero is illegal and MUST always be Nak'd, if it is not
- Rejected outright.
-
- Default
-
- None.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 53]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.7. Protocol-Field-Compression
-
- Description
-
- This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the
- compression of the Data Link Layer Protocol field. By default,
- all implementations MUST transmit standard PPP frames with two
- octet Protocol fields. However, PPP Protocol field numbers are
- chosen such that some values may be compressed into a single octet
- form which is clearly distinguishable from the two octet form.
- This Configuration Option is sent to inform the peer that the
- implementation can receive such single octet Protocol fields.
- Compressed Protocol fields MUST NOT be transmitted unless this
- Configuration Option has been negotiated.
-
- As previously mentioned, the Protocol field uses an extension
- mechanism consistent with the ISO 3309 extension mechanism for the
- Address field; the Least Significant Bit (LSB) of each octet is
- used to indicate extension of the Protocol field. A binary "0" as
- the LSB indicates that the Protocol field continues with the
- following octet. The presence of a binary "1" as the LSB marks
- the last octet of the Protocol field. Notice that any number of
- "0" octets may be prepended to the field, and will still indicate
- the same value (consider the two representations for 3, 00000011
- and 00000000 00000011).
-
- In the interest of simplicity, the standard PPP frame uses this
- fact and always sends Protocol fields with a two octet
- representation. Protocol field values less than 256 (decimal) are
- prepended with a single zero octet even though transmission of
- this, the zero and most significant octet, is unnecessary.
-
- However, when using low speed links, it is desirable to conserve
- bandwidth by sending as little redundant data as possible. The
- Protocol Compression Configuration Option allows a trade-off
- between implementation simplicity and bandwidth efficiency. If
- successfully negotiated, the ISO 3309 extension mechanism may be
- used to compress the Protocol field to one octet instead of two.
- The large majority of frames are compressible since data protocols
- are typically assigned with Protocol field values less than 256.
-
- In addition, PPP implementations must continue to be robust and
- MUST accept PPP frames with either double-octet or single-octet
- Protocol fields, and MUST NOT distinguish between them.
-
- The Protocol field is never compressed when sending any LCP
- packet. This rule guarantees unambiguous recognition of LCP
- packets.
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 54]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- When a Protocol field is compressed, the Data Link Layer FCS field
- is calculated on the compressed frame, not the original
- uncompressed frame.
-
- A summary of the Protocol-Field-Compression Configuration Option
- format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to
- right.
-
- 0 1
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 7
-
- Length
-
- 2
-
- Default
-
- Disabled.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 55]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 7.8. Address-and-Control-Field-Compression
-
- Description
-
- This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the
- compression of the Data Link Layer Address and Control fields. By
- default, all implementations MUST transmit frames with Address and
- Control fields and MUST use the hexadecimal values 0xff and 0x03
- respectively. Since these fields have constant values, they are
- easily compressed. This Configuration Option is sent to inform
- the peer that the implementation can receive compressed Address
- and Control fields.
-
- Compressed Address and Control fields are formed by simply
- omitting them. By definition the first octet of a two octet
- Protocol field will never be 0xff, and the Protocol field value
- 0x00ff is not allowed (reserved) to avoid ambiguity.
-
- On reception, the Address and Control fields are decompressed by
- examining the first two octets. If they contain the values 0xff
- and 0x03, they are assumed to be the Address and Control fields.
- If not, it is assumed that the fields were compressed and were not
- transmitted.
-
- If a compressed frame is received when Address-and-Control-Field-
- Compression has not been negotiated, the implementation MAY
- silently discard the frame.
-
- The Address and Control fields MUST NOT be compressed when sending
- any LCP packet. This rule guarantees unambiguous recognition of
- LCP packets.
-
- When the Address and Control fields are compressed, the Data Link
- Layer FCS field is calculated on the compressed frame, not the
- original uncompressed frame.
-
- A summary of the Address-and-Control-Field-Compression configuration
- option format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left
- to right.
-
- 0 1
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 56]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Type
-
- 8
-
- Length
-
- 2
-
- Default
-
- Not compressed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 57]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- A. Asynchronous HDLC
-
- This appendix summarizes the modifications to ISO 3309-1979 proposed
- in ISO 3309:1984/PDAD1, as applied in the Point-to-Point Protocol.
- These modifications allow HDLC to be used with 8-bit asynchronous
- links.
-
- Transmission Considerations
-
- All octets are transmitted with one start bit, eight bits of data,
- and one stop bit. There is no provision in either PPP or ISO
- 3309:1984/PDAD1 for seven bit asynchronous links.
-
- Flag Sequence
-
- The Flag Sequence is a single octet and indicates the beginning or
- end of a frame. The Flag Sequence consists of the binary sequence
- 01111110 (hexadecimal 0x7e).
-
- Transparency
-
- On asynchronous links, a character stuffing procedure is used.
- The Control Escape octet is defined as binary 01111101
- (hexadecimal 0x7d) where the bit positions are numbered 87654321
- (not 76543210, BEWARE).
-
- After FCS computation, the transmitter examines the entire frame
- between the two Flag Sequences. Each Flag Sequence, Control
- Escape octet and octet with value less than hexadecimal 0x20 which
- is flagged in the Remote Async-Control-Character-Map is replaced
- by a two octet sequence consisting of the Control Escape octet and
- the original octet with bit 6 complemented (i.e., exclusive-or'd
- with hexadecimal 0x20).
-
- Prior to FCS computation, the receiver examines the entire frame
- between the two Flag Sequences. Each octet with value less than
- hexadecimal 0x20 is checked. If it is flagged in the Local
- Async-Control-Character-Map, it is simply removed (it may have
- been inserted by intervening data communications equipment). For
- each Control Escape octet, that octet is also removed, but bit 6
- of the following octet is complemented. A Control Escape octet
- immediately preceding the closing Flag Sequence indicates an
- invalid frame.
-
- Note: The inclusion of all octets less than hexadecimal 0x20
- allows all ASCII control characters [10] excluding DEL (Delete)
- to be transparently communicated through almost all known data
- communications equipment.
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 58]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- The transmitter may also send octets with value in the range 0x40
- through 0xff (except 0x5e) in Control Escape format. Since these
- octet values are not negotiable, this does not solve the problem
- of receivers which cannot handle all non-control characters.
- Also, since the technique does not affect the 8th bit, this does
- not solve problems for communications links that can send only 7-
- bit characters.
-
- A few examples may make this more clear. Packet data is
- transmitted on the link as follows:
-
- 0x7e is encoded as 0x7d, 0x5e.
- 0x7d is encoded as 0x7d, 0x5d.
- 0x01 is encoded as 0x7d, 0x21.
-
- Some modems with software flow control may intercept outgoing DC1
- and DC3 ignoring the 8th (parity) bit. This data would be
- transmitted on the link as follows:
-
- 0x11 is encoded as 0x7d, 0x31.
- 0x13 is encoded as 0x7d, 0x33.
- 0x91 is encoded as 0x7d, 0xb1.
- 0x93 is encoded as 0x7d, 0xb3.
-
- Aborting a Transmission
-
- On asynchronous links, frames may be aborted by transmitting a "0"
- stop bit where a "1" bit is expected (framing error) or by
- transmitting a Control Escape octet followed immediately by a
- closing Flag Sequence.
-
- Time Fill
-
- On asynchronous links, inter-octet and inter-frame time fill MUST
- be accomplished by transmitting continuous "1" bits (mark-hold
- state).
-
- Note: On asynchronous links, inter-frame time fill can be
- viewed as extended inter-octet time fill. Doing so can save
- one octet for every frame, decreasing delay and increasing
- bandwidth. This is possible since a Flag Sequence may serve as
- both a frame close and a frame begin. After having received
- any frame, an idle receiver will always be in a frame begin
- state.
-
- Robust transmitters should avoid using this trick over-
- zealously since the price for decreased delay is decreased
- reliability. Noisy links may cause the receiver to receive
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 59]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- garbage characters and interpret them as part of an incoming
- frame. If the transmitter does not transmit a new opening Flag
- Sequence before sending the next frame, then that frame will be
- appended to the noise characters causing an invalid frame (with
- high reliability). Transmitters should avoid this by
- transmitting an open Flag Sequence whenever "appreciable time"
- has elapsed since the prior closing Flag Sequence. It is
- suggested that implementations will achieve the best results by
- always sending an opening Flag Sequence if the new frame is not
- back-to-back with the last. The maximum value for "appreciable
- time" is likely to be no greater than the typing rate of a slow
- to average typist, say 1 second.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 60]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- B. Fast Frame Check Sequence (FCS) Implementation
-
- B.1. FCS Computation Method
-
- The following code provides a table lookup computation for
- calculating the Frame Check Sequence as data arrives at the
- interface. This implementation is based on [7], [8], and [9]. The
- table is created by the code in section B.2.
-
- /*
- * u16 represents an unsigned 16-bit number. Adjust the typedef for
- * your hardware.
- */
- typedef unsigned short u16;
-
-
- /*
- * FCS lookup table as calculated by the table generator in section
- * B.2.
- */
- static u16 fcstab[256] = {
- 0x0000, 0x1189, 0x2312, 0x329b, 0x4624, 0x57ad, 0x6536, 0x74bf,
- 0x8c48, 0x9dc1, 0xaf5a, 0xbed3, 0xca6c, 0xdbe5, 0xe97e, 0xf8f7,
- 0x1081, 0x0108, 0x3393, 0x221a, 0x56a5, 0x472c, 0x75b7, 0x643e,
- 0x9cc9, 0x8d40, 0xbfdb, 0xae52, 0xdaed, 0xcb64, 0xf9ff, 0xe876,
- 0x2102, 0x308b, 0x0210, 0x1399, 0x6726, 0x76af, 0x4434, 0x55bd,
- 0xad4a, 0xbcc3, 0x8e58, 0x9fd1, 0xeb6e, 0xfae7, 0xc87c, 0xd9f5,
- 0x3183, 0x200a, 0x1291, 0x0318, 0x77a7, 0x662e, 0x54b5, 0x453c,
- 0xbdcb, 0xac42, 0x9ed9, 0x8f50, 0xfbef, 0xea66, 0xd8fd, 0xc974,
- 0x4204, 0x538d, 0x6116, 0x709f, 0x0420, 0x15a9, 0x2732, 0x36bb,
- 0xce4c, 0xdfc5, 0xed5e, 0xfcd7, 0x8868, 0x99e1, 0xab7a, 0xbaf3,
- 0x5285, 0x430c, 0x7197, 0x601e, 0x14a1, 0x0528, 0x37b3, 0x263a,
- 0xdecd, 0xcf44, 0xfddf, 0xec56, 0x98e9, 0x8960, 0xbbfb, 0xaa72,
- 0x6306, 0x728f, 0x4014, 0x519d, 0x2522, 0x34ab, 0x0630, 0x17b9,
- 0xef4e, 0xfec7, 0xcc5c, 0xddd5, 0xa96a, 0xb8e3, 0x8a78, 0x9bf1,
- 0x7387, 0x620e, 0x5095, 0x411c, 0x35a3, 0x242a, 0x16b1, 0x0738,
- 0xffcf, 0xee46, 0xdcdd, 0xcd54, 0xb9eb, 0xa862, 0x9af9, 0x8b70,
- 0x8408, 0x9581, 0xa71a, 0xb693, 0xc22c, 0xd3a5, 0xe13e, 0xf0b7,
- 0x0840, 0x19c9, 0x2b52, 0x3adb, 0x4e64, 0x5fed, 0x6d76, 0x7cff,
- 0x9489, 0x8500, 0xb79b, 0xa612, 0xd2ad, 0xc324, 0xf1bf, 0xe036,
- 0x18c1, 0x0948, 0x3bd3, 0x2a5a, 0x5ee5, 0x4f6c, 0x7df7, 0x6c7e,
- 0xa50a, 0xb483, 0x8618, 0x9791, 0xe32e, 0xf2a7, 0xc03c, 0xd1b5,
- 0x2942, 0x38cb, 0x0a50, 0x1bd9, 0x6f66, 0x7eef, 0x4c74, 0x5dfd,
- 0xb58b, 0xa402, 0x9699, 0x8710, 0xf3af, 0xe226, 0xd0bd, 0xc134,
- 0x39c3, 0x284a, 0x1ad1, 0x0b58, 0x7fe7, 0x6e6e, 0x5cf5, 0x4d7c,
- 0xc60c, 0xd785, 0xe51e, 0xf497, 0x8028, 0x91a1, 0xa33a, 0xb2b3,
- 0x4a44, 0x5bcd, 0x6956, 0x78df, 0x0c60, 0x1de9, 0x2f72, 0x3efb,
- 0xd68d, 0xc704, 0xf59f, 0xe416, 0x90a9, 0x8120, 0xb3bb, 0xa232,
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 61]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 0x5ac5, 0x4b4c, 0x79d7, 0x685e, 0x1ce1, 0x0d68, 0x3ff3, 0x2e7a,
- 0xe70e, 0xf687, 0xc41c, 0xd595, 0xa12a, 0xb0a3, 0x8238, 0x93b1,
- 0x6b46, 0x7acf, 0x4854, 0x59dd, 0x2d62, 0x3ceb, 0x0e70, 0x1ff9,
- 0xf78f, 0xe606, 0xd49d, 0xc514, 0xb1ab, 0xa022, 0x92b9, 0x8330,
- 0x7bc7, 0x6a4e, 0x58d5, 0x495c, 0x3de3, 0x2c6a, 0x1ef1, 0x0f78
- };
-
- #define PPPINITFCS 0xffff /* Initial FCS value */
- #define PPPGOODFCS 0xf0b8 /* Good final FCS value */
-
- /*
- * Calculate a new fcs given the current fcs and the new data.
- */
- u16 pppfcs(fcs, cp, len)
- register u16 fcs;
- register unsigned char *cp;
- register int len;
- {
- ASSERT(sizeof (u16) == 2);
- ASSERT(((u16) -1) > 0);
- while (len--)
- fcs = (fcs >> 8) ^ fcstab[(fcs ^ *cp++) & 0xff];
-
- return (fcs);
- }
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 62]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- B.2. Fast FCS table generator
-
- The following code creates the lookup table used to calculate the
- FCS.
-
- /*
- * Generate a FCS table for the HDLC FCS.
- *
- * Drew D. Perkins at Carnegie Mellon University.
- *
- * Code liberally borrowed from Mohsen Banan and D. Hugh Redelmeier.
- */
-
- /*
- * The HDLC polynomial: x**0 + x**5 + x**12 + x**16 (0x8408).
- */
- #define P 0x8408
-
-
- main()
- {
- register unsigned int b, v;
- register int i;
-
- printf("typedef unsigned short u16;\n");
- printf("static u16 fcstab[256] = {");
- for (b = 0; ; ) {
- if (b % 8 == 0)
- printf("\n");
-
- v = b;
- for (i = 8; i--; )
- v = v & 1 ? (v >> 1) ^ P : v >> 1;
-
- printf("0x%04x", v & 0xFFFF);
- if (++b == 256)
- break;
- printf(",");
- }
- printf("\n};\n");
- }
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 63]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- C. LCP Recommended Options
-
- The following Configurations Options are recommended:
-
- SYNC LINES
-
- Magic Number
- Link Quality Monitoring
- No Address and Control Field Compression
- No Protocol Field Compression
-
-
- ASYNC LINES
-
- Async Control Character Map
- Magic Number
- Address and Control Field Compression
- Protocol Field Compression
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 64]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are briefly discussed in sections concerning the
- Authentication Phase, and the Authentication-Protocol Configuration
- Option. Further discussion is planned in a separate document
- entitled PPP Authentication Protocols.
-
- References
-
- [1] Electronic Industries Association, EIA Standard RS-232-C,
- "Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment and Data
- Communications Equipment Employing Serial Binary Data
- Interchange", August 1969.
-
- [2] International Organization For Standardization, ISO Standard
- 3309-1979, "Data communication - High-level data link control
- procedures - Frame structure", 1979.
-
- [3] International Organization For Standardization, ISO Standard
- 4335-1979, "Data communication - High-level data link control
- procedures - Elements of procedures", 1979.
-
- [4] International Organization For Standardization, ISO Standard
- 4335-1979/Addendum 1, "Data communication - High-level data
- link control procedures - Elements of procedures - Addendum 1",
- 1979.
-
- [5] International Organization For Standardization, Proposed Draft
- International Standard ISO 3309:1983/PDAD1, "Information
- processing systems - Data communication - High-level data link
- control procedures - Frame structure - Addendum 1: Start/stop
- transmission", 1984.
-
- [6] International Telecommunication Union, CCITT Recommendation
- X.25, "Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) and Data
- Circuit Terminating Equipment (DCE) for Terminals Operating in
- the Packet Mode on Public Data Networks", CCITT Red Book,
- Volume VIII, Fascicle VIII.3, Rec. X.25., October 1984.
-
- [7] Perez, "Byte-wise CRC Calculations", IEEE Micro, June, 1983.
-
- [8] Morse, G., "Calculating CRC's by Bits and Bytes", Byte,
- September 1986.
-
- [9] LeVan, J., "A Fast CRC", Byte, November 1987.
-
- [10] American National Standards Institute, ANSI X3.4-1977,
- "American National Standard Code for Information Interchange",
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 65]
-
- RFC 1331 Point-to-Point Protocol May 1992
-
-
- 1977.
-
- [11] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1060,
- USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1990.
-
- Acknowledgments
-
- Much of the text in this document is taken from the WG Requirements
- (unpublished), and RFCs 1171 & 1172, by Drew Perkins of Carnegie
- Mellon University, and by Russ Hobby of the University of California
- at Davis.
-
- Many people spent significant time helping to develop the Point-to-
- Point Protocol. The complete list of people is too numerous to list,
- but the following people deserve special thanks: Rick Adams (UUNET),
- Ken Adelman (TGV), Fred Baker (ACC), Mike Ballard (Telebit), Craig
- Fox (NSC), Karl Fox (Morning Star Technologies), Phill Gross (NRI),
- former WG chair Russ Hobby (UC Davis), David Kaufman (Proteon),
- former WG chair Steve Knowles (FTP Software), John LoVerso
- (Xylogics), Bill Melohn (Sun Microsystems), Mike Patton (MIT), former
- WG chair Drew Perkins (CMU), Greg Satz (cisco systems) and Asher
- Waldfogel (Wellfleet).
-
- Chair's Address
-
- The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
-
- Brian Lloyd
- Lloyd & Associates
- 3420 Sudbury Road
- Cameron Park, California 95682
-
- Phone: (916) 676-1147
-
- EMail: brian@ray.lloyd.com
-
-
- Author's Address
-
- Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
-
- William Allen Simpson
- Daydreamer
- Computer Systems Consulting Services
- P O Box 6205
- East Lansing, MI 48826-6025
-
- EMail: bsimpson@ray.lloyd.com
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 66]
-
-