faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 3545 - Enhanced Compressed RTP (CRTP) for Links with High De


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                           T. Koren
Request for Comments: 3545                                 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track                                      S. Casner
                                                           Packet Design
                                                          J. Geevarghese
                                         Motorola India Electronics Ltd.
                                                             B. Thompson
                                                                P. Ruddy
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                               July 2003

       Enhanced Compressed RTP (CRTP) for Links with High Delay,
                      Packet Loss and Reordering

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a header compression scheme for point to
   point links with packet loss and long delays.  It is based on
   Compressed Real-time Transport Protocol (CRTP), the IP/UDP/RTP header
   compression described in RFC 2508.  CRTP does not perform well on
   such links: packet loss results in context corruption and due to the
   long delay, many more packets are discarded before the context is
   repaired.  To correct the behavior of CRTP over such links, a few
   extensions to the protocol are specified here.  The extensions aim to
   reduce context corruption by changing the way the compressor updates
   the context at the decompressor: updates are repeated and include
   updates to full and differential context parameters.  With these
   extensions, CRTP performs well over links with packet loss, packet
   reordering and long delays.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction .................................................  2
       1.1.  CRTP Operation .........................................  4
       1.2.  How do contexts get corrupted? .........................  4
       1.3.  Preventing context corruption ..........................  5
       1.4.  Specification of Requirements ..........................  5
   2.  Enhanced CRTP ................................................  5
       2.1.  Extended COMPRESSED_UDP packet .........................  6
       2.2.  CRTP Headers Checksum .................................. 11
       2.3.  Achieving robust operation ............................. 13
             2.3.1.  Examples ....................................... 15
   3.  Negotiating usage of enhanced-CRTP ........................... 18
   4.  Security Considerations ...................................... 18
   5.  Acknowledgements ............................................. 19
   6.  References ................................................... 19
       6.1.  Normative References ................................... 19
       6.2.  Informative References ................................. 20
   7.  Intellectual Property Rights Notice .......................... 20
   8.  Authors' Addresses ........................................... 21
   9.  Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 22

1.  Introduction

   RTP header compression (CRTP) as described in RFC 2508 was designed
   to reduce the header overhead of IP/UDP/RTP datagrams by compressing
   the three headers.  The IP/UDP/RTP headers are compressed to 2-4
   bytes most of the time.

   CRTP was designed for reliable point to point links with short
   delays.  It does not perform well over links with high rate of packet
   loss, packet reordering and long delays.

   An example of such a link is a PPP session that is tunneled using an
   IP level tunneling protocol such as L2TP.  Packets within the tunnel
   are carried by an IP network and hence may get lost and reordered.
   The longer the tunnel, the longer the round trip time.

   Another example is an IP network that uses layer 2 technologies such
   as ATM and Frame Relay for the access portion of the network.  Layer
   2 transport networks such as ATM and Frame Relay behave like point to
   point serial links in that they do not reorder packets.  In addition,
   Frame Relay and ATM virtual circuits used as IP access technologies
   often have a low bit rate associated with them.  These virtual
   circuits differ from low speed serial links in that they may span a
   larger physical distance than a point to point serial link. Speed of
   light delays within the layer 2 transport network will result in
   higher round trip delays between the endpoints of the circuit.  In

   addition, congestion within the layer 2 transport network may result
   in an effective drop rate for the virtual circuit which is
   significantly higher than error rates typically experienced on point
   to point serial links.

   It may be desirable to extend existing CRTP implementations for use
   also over IP tunnels and other virtual circuits, where packet losses,
   reordering, and long delays are common characteristics.  To address
   these scenarios, this document defines modifications and extensions
   to CRTP to increase robustness to both packet loss and misordering
   between the compressor and the decompressor.  This is achieved by
   repeating updates and allowing the sending of absolute (uncompressed)
   values in addition to delta values for selected context parameters.
   Although these new mechanisms impose some additional overhead, the
   overall compression is still substantial. The enhanced CRTP, as
   defined in this document, is thus suitable for many applications in
   the scenarios discussed above, e.g., tunneling and other virtual
   circuits.

   RFC 3095 defines another RTP header compression scheme called Robust
   Header Compression [ROHC].  ROHC was developed with wireless links as
   the main target, and introduced new compression mechanisms with the
   primary objective to achieve the combination of robustness against
   packet loss and maximal compression efficiency.  ROHC is expected to
   be the preferred compression mechanism over links where compression
   efficiency is important.  However, ROHC was designed with the same
   link assumptions as CRTP, e.g., that the compression scheme should
   not have to tolerate misordering of compressed packets between the
   compressor and decompressor, which may occur when packets are carried
   in an IP tunnel across multiple hops.

   At some time in the future, enhancements may be defined for ROHC to
   allow it to perform well in the presence of misordering of compressed
   packets.  The result might be more efficient than the compression
   protocol specified in this document.  However, there are many
   environments for which the enhanced CRTP defined here may be the
   preferred choice.  In particular, for those environments where CRTP
   is already implemented, the additional effort required to implement
   the extensions defined here is expected to be small. There are also
   cases where the implementation simplicity of this enhanced CRTP
   relative to ROHC is more important than the performance advantages of
   ROHC.

1.1.  CRTP Operation

   During compression of an RTP stream, a session context is defined.
   For each context, the session state is established and shared between
   the compressor and the decompressor.  Once the context state is
   established, compressed packets may be sent.

   The context state consists of the full IP/UDP/RTP headers, a few
   first order differential values, a link sequence number, a generation
   number and a delta encoding table.

   The headers part of the context is set by the FULL_HEADER packet that
   always starts a compression session.  The first order differential
   values (delta values) are set by sending COMPRESSED_RTP packets that
   include updates to the delta values.

   The context state must be synchronized between compressor and
   decompressor for successful decompression to take place.  If the
   context gets out of sync, the decompressor is not able to restore the
   compressed headers accurately.  The decompressor invalidates the
   context and sends a CONTEXT_STATE packet to the compressor indicating
   that the context has been corrupted.  To resume compression, the
   compressor must re-establish the context.

   During the time the context is corrupted, the decompressor discards
   all the packets received for that context.  Since the context repair
   mechanism in CRTP involves feedback from the decompressor, context
   repair takes at least as much time as the round trip time of the
   link.  If the round trip time of the link is long, and especially if
   the link bandwidth is high, many packets will be discarded before the
   context is repaired.  On such links it is desirable to minimize
   context invalidation.

1.2.  How do contexts get corrupted?

   As long as the fields in the combined IP/UDP/RTP headers change as
   expected for the sequence of packets in a session, those headers can
   be compressed, and the decompressor can fully restore the compressed
   headers using the context state.  When the headers don't change as
   expected it's necessary to update some of the full or the delta
   values of the context.  For example, the RTP timestamp is expected to
   increment by delta RTP timestamp (dT).  If silence suppression is
   used, packets are not sent during silence periods.  Then when voice
   activity resumes, packets are sent again, but the RTP timestamp is
   incremented by a large value and not by dT.  In this case an update
   must be sent.

   If a packet that includes an update to some context state values is
   lost, the state at the decompressor is not updated.  The shared state
   is now different at the compressor and decompressor.  When the next
   packet arrives at the decompressor, the decompressor will fail to
   restore the compressed headers accurately since the context state at
   the decompressor is different than the state at the compressor.

1.3.  Preventing context corruption

   Note that the decompressor fails not when a packet is lost, but when
   the next compressed packet arrives.  If the next packet happens to
   include the same context update as in the lost packet, the context at
   the decompressor may be updated successfully and decompression may
   continue uninterrupted.  If the lost packet included an update to a
   delta field such as the delta RTP timestamp (dT), the next packet
   can't compensate for the loss since the update of a delta value is
   relative to the previous packet which was lost.  But if the update is
   for an absolute value such as the full RTP timestamp or the RTP
   payload type, this update can be repeated in the next packet
   independently of the lost packet.  Hence it is useful to be able to
   update the absolute values of the context.

   The next chapter describes several extensions to CRTP that add the
   capability to selectively update absolute values of the context,
   rather than sending a FULL_HEADER packet, in addition to the existing
   updates of the delta values.  This enhanced version of CRTP is
   intended to minimize context invalidation and thus improve the
   performance over lossy links with a long round trip time.

1.4.  Specification of Requirements

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

2.  Enhanced CRTP

   This chapter specifies the changes in this enhanced version of CRTP.
   They are:

   -  Extensions to the COMPRESSED_UDP packet to allow updating the
      differential RTP values in the decompressor context and to
      selectively update the absolute IPv4 ID and the following RTP
      values: sequence number, timestamp, payload type, CSRC count and
      CSRC list.  This allows context sync to be maintained even with
      some packet loss.

   -  A "headers checksum" to be inserted by the compressor and removed
      by the decompressor when the UDP checksum is not present so that
      validation of the decompressed headers is still possible.  This
      allows the decompressor to verify that context sync has not been
      lost after a packet loss.

   An algorithm is then described to use these changes with repeated
   updates to achieve robust operation over links with packet loss and
   long delay.

2.1.  Extended COMPRESSED_UDP packet

   It is possible to accommodate some packet loss between the compressor
   and decompressor using the "twice" algorithm in RFC 2508 so long as
   the context remains in sync.  In that algorithm, the delta values are
   added to the previous context twice (or more) to effect the change
   that would have occurred if the missing packets had arrived.  The
   result is verified with the UDP checksum.  Keeping the context in
   sync requires reliably communicating both the absolute value and the
   delta value whenever the delta value changes.  For many environments,
   sufficient reliability can be achieved by repeating the update with
   each of several successive packets.

   The COMPRESSED_UDP packet satisfies the need to communicate the
   absolute values of the differential RTP fields, but it is specified
   in RFC 2508 to reset the delta RTP timestamp.  That limitation can be
   removed with the following simple change: RFC 2508 describes the
   format of COMPRESSED_UDP as being the same as COMPRESSED_RTP except
   that the M, S and T bits are always 0 and the corresponding delta
   fields are never included.  This enhanced version of CRTP changes
   that specification to say that the T bit MAY be nonzero to indicate
   that the delta RTP timestamp is included explicitly rather than being
   reset to zero.

   A second change adds another byte of flag bits to the COMPRESSED_UDP
   packet to allow only selected individual uncompressed fields of the
   RTP header to be included in the packet rather than carrying the full
   RTP header as part of the UDP data.  The additional flags do increase
   computational complexity somewhat, but the corresponding increase in
   bit efficiency is important when the differential field updates are
   communicated multiple times in successive COMPRESSED_UDP packets.
   With this change, there are flag bits to indicate inclusion of both
   delta values and absolute values, so the flag nomenclature is
   changed.  The original S, T, I bits which indicate the inclusion of
   deltas are renamed dS, dT, dI, and the inclusion of absolute values
   is indicated by S, T, I.  The M bit is absolute as before.  A new

   flag P indicates inclusion of the absolute RTP payload type value and
   another flag C indicates the inclusion of the CSRC count.  When C=1,
   an additional byte is added following the two flag bytes to include
   the absolute value of the four-bit CC field in the RTP header.

   The last of the three changes to the COMPRESSED_UDP packet deals with
   updating the IPv4 ID field.  For this field, the COMPRESSED_UDP
   packet as specified in RFC 2508 can already convey a new value for
   the delta IPv4 ID, but not the absolute value which is only conveyed
   by the FULL_HEADER packet.  Therefore, a new flag I is added to the
   COMPRESSED_UDP packet to indicate inclusion of the absolute IPv4 ID
   value.  The I flag replaces the dS flag which is not needed in the
   COMPRESSED_UDP packet since the delta RTP sequence number always
   remains 1 in the decompressor context and hence does not need to be
   updated.  Note that IPv6 does not have an IP ID field, so when
   compressing IPv6 packets both the I and the dI flags are always set
   to 0.

   The format of the flags/sequence byte for the original COMPRESSED_UDP
   packet is shown here for reference:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | 0 | 0 | 0 |dI | link sequence |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   The new definition of the flags/sequence byte plus an extension flags
   byte for the COMPRESSED_UDP packet is as follows, where the new F
   flag indicates the inclusion of the extension flags byte:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | F | I |dT |dI | link sequence |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      : M : S : T : P : C : 0 : 0 : 0 :  (if F = 1)
      +...+...+...+...+...+...+...+...+

   dI  = delta IPv4 ID
   dT  = delta RTP timestamp
   I   = absolute IPv4 ID
   F   = additional flags byte
   M   = marker bit
   S   = absolute RTP sequence number
   T   = absolute RTP timestamp
   P   = RTP payload type
   C   = CSRC count
   CID = Context ID

   When F=0, there is only one flags byte, and the only available flags
   are: dI, dT and I.  In this case the packet includes the full RTP
   header.  As in RFC 2508, if dI=0, the decompressor does not change
   deltaI.  If dT=0, the decompressor sets deltaT to 0.

   When C=1, an additional byte is added following the two flag bytes.
   This byte includes the CC, the count of CSRC identifiers, in its
   lower 4 bits:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | F | I |dT |dI | link sequence |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      : M : S : T : P : C : 0 : 0 : 0 :  (if F = 1)
      +...+...+...+...+...+...+...+...+
      : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 :      CC       :  (if C = 1)
      +...+...+...+...+...............+

   The bits marked "0" in the second flag byte and the CC byte SHOULD be
   set to zero by the sender and SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.

   Some example packet formats will illustrate the use of the new flags.
   First, when F=0, the "traditional" COMPRESSED_UDP packet which
   carries the full RTP header as part of the UDP data:

        0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
      +...............................+
      :   msb of session context ID   :  (if 16-bit CID)
      +-------------------------------+
      |   lsb of session context ID   |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |F=0| I |dT |dI | link sequence |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      :                               :
      +         UDP checksum          +  (if nonzero in context)
      :                               :
      +...............................+
      :                               :
      +        "RANDOM" fields        +  (if encapsulated)
      :                               :
      +...............................+
      :         delta IPv4 ID         :  (if dI = 1)
      +...............................+
      :      delta RTP timestamp      :  (if dT = 1)
      +...............................+
      :                               :
      +           IPv4 ID             +  (if I = 1)
      :                               :
      +...............................+
      |           UDP data            |
      :   (uncompressed RTP header)   :

   When F=1, there is an additional flags byte and the available flags
   are: dI, dT, I, M, S, T, P, C.  If C=1, there is an additional byte
   that includes the number of CSRC identifiers.  When F=1, the packet
   does not include the full RTP header, but includes selected fields
   from the RTP header as specified by the flags.  As in RFC 2508, if
   dI=0 the decompressor does not change deltaI.  However, in contrast
   to RFC 2508, if dT=0 the decompressor KEEPS THE CURRENT deltaT in the
   context (DOES NOT set deltaT to 0).

   An enhanced COMPRESSED_UDP packet is similar in contents and behavior
   to a COMPRESSED_RTP packet, but it has more flag bits, some of which
   correspond to absolute values for RTP header fields.

   COMPRESSED_UDP with individual RTP fields, when F=1:

     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
   +...............................+
   :   msb of session context ID   :  (if 16-bit CID)
   +-------------------------------+
   |   lsb of session context ID   |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |F=1| I |dT |dI | link sequence |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   | M | S | T | P | C | 0 | 0 | 0 |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 :      CC       :  (if C = 1)
   +...+...+...+...+...............+
   :                               :
   +         UDP checksum          +  (if nonzero in context)
   :                               :
   +...............................+
   :                               :
   :        "RANDOM" fields        :  (if encapsulated)
   :                               :
   +...............................+
   :         delta IPv4 ID         :  (if dI = 1)
   +...............................+
   :      delta RTP timestamp      :  (if dT = 1)
   +...............................+
   :                               :
   +           IPv4 ID             +  (if I = 1)
   :                               :
   +...............................+
   :                               :
   +     RTP sequence number       +  (if S = 1)
   :                               :
   +...............................+
   :                               :
   +                               +
   :                               :
   +         RTP timestamp         +  (if T = 1)
   :                               :
   +                               +
   :                               :
   +...............................+
   :       RTP payload type        :  (if P = 1)
   +...............................+
   :                               :
   :           CSRC list           :  (if CC > 0)
   :                               :
   +...............................+

   :                               :
   :      RTP header extension     :  (if X set in context)
   :                               :
   +-------------------------------+
   |                               |
   /           RTP data            /
   /                               /
   |                               |
   +-------------------------------+
   :            padding            :  (if P set in context)
   +...............................+

   Usage for the enhanced COMPRESSED_UDP packet:

   It is useful for the compressor to periodically refresh the state of
   the decompressor to avoid having the decompressor send CONTEXT_STATE
   messages in the case of unrecoverable packet loss.  Using the flags
   F=0 and I=1, dI=1, dT=1, the COMPRESSED_UDP packet refreshes all the
   context parameters.

   When compression is done over a lossy link with a long round trip
   delay, we want to minimize context invalidation.  If the delta values
   are changing frequently, the context might get invalidated often.  In
   such cases the compressor MAY choose to always send absolute values
   and never delta values, using COMPRESSED_UDP packets with the flags
   F=1, and any of S, T, I as necessary.

2.2.  CRTP Headers Checksum

   RFC 2508, in Section 3.3.5, describes how the UDP checksum may be
   used to validate header reconstruction periodically or when the
   "twice" algorithm is used.  When a UDP checksum is not present (has
   value zero) in a stream, such validation would not be possible.  To
   cover that case, this enhanced CRTP provides an option whereby the
   compressor MAY replace the null UDP checksum with a 16-bit headers
   checksum (HDRCKSUM) which is subsequently removed by the decompressor
   after validation.  Note that this option is never used with IPv6
   since a null UDP checksum is not allowed.

   A new flag C in the FULL_HEADER packet, as specified below, indicates
   when set that all COMPRESSED_UDP and COMPRESSED_RTP packets sent in
   that context will have HDRCKSUM inserted.  The compressor MAY set the
   C flag when UDP packet carried in the FULL_HEADER packet originally
   contained a checksum value of zero. If the C flag is set, the
   FULL_HEADER packet itself MUST also have the HDRCKSUM inserted.  If a
   packet in the same stream subsequently arrives at the compressor with
   a UDP checksum present, then a new FULL_HEADER packet MUST be sent
   with the flag cleared to re-establish the context.

   The HDRCKSUM is calculated in the same way as a UDP checksum except
   that it does not cover all of the UDP data.  That is, the HDRCKSUM is
   the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of the
   pseudo-IP header (as defined for UDP), the UDP header, the first 12
   bytes of the UDP data which are assumed to hold the fixed part of an
   RTP header, and the CSRC list.  The extended part of the RTP header
   beyond the CSRC list and the RTP data will not be included in the
   HDRCKSUM.  The HDRCKSUM is placed in the COMPRESSED_UDP or
   COMPRESSED_RTP packet where a UDP checksum would have been.  The
   decompressor MUST zero out the UDP checksum field in the
   reconstructed packets.

   For a non-RTP context, there may be fewer than 12 UDP data bytes
   present.  The IP and UDP headers can still be compressed into a
   COMPRESSED_UDP packet.  For this case, the HDRCKSUM is calculated
   over the pseudo-IP header, the UDP header, and the UDP data bytes
   that are present.  If the number of data bytes is odd, then a zero
   padding byte is appended for the purpose of calculating the checksum,
   but not transmitted.

   The HDRCKSUM does not validate the RTP data.  If the link layer is
   configured to deliver packets without checking for errors, then
   errors in the RTP data will not be detected.  Over such links, the
   compressor SHOULD add the HDRCKSUM if a UDP checksum is not present,
   and the decompressor SHOULD validate each reconstructed packet to
   make sure that at least the headers are correct.  This ensures that
   the packet will be delivered to the right destination.  If only
   HDRCKSUM is available, the RTP data will be delivered even if it
   includes errors.  This might be a desirable feature for applications
   that can tolerate errors in the RTP data.  The same holds for the
   extended part of the RTP header beyond the CSRC list.

   Here is the format of the FULL_HEADER length fields with the new flag
   C to indicate that a header checksum will be added in COMPRESSED_UDP
   and COMPRESSED_RTP packets:

   For 8-bit context ID:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|1| Generation|      CID      |  First length field
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            0        |C|  seq  |  Second length field
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  C=1: HDRCKSUM will be added

   For 16-bit context ID:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|1| Generation| 0   |C|  seq  |  First length field
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  C=1: HDRCKSUM will be added

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              CID              |  Second length field
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.3.  Achieving robust operation

   Enhanced CRTP achieves robust operation by sending changes multiple
   times to keep the compressor and decompressor in sync.  This method
   is characterized by a number "N" that represents the quality of the
   link between the hosts.  What it means is that the probability of
   more than N adjacent packets getting lost on this link is small.  For
   every change in a full value or a delta value, if the compressor
   includes the change in N+1 consecutive packets, then the decompressor
   can keep its context state in sync with the compressor using the
   "twice" algorithm so long as no more than N adjacent packets are
   lost.

   Since updates are repeated in N+1 packets, if at least one of these
   N+1 update packets is received by the decompressor, both the full and
   delta values in the context at the decompressor will get updated and
   its context will stay synchronized with the context at the
   compressor.  We can conclude that as long as less than N+1 adjacent
   packets are lost, the context at the decompressor is guaranteed to be
   synchronized with the context at the compressor, and use of the
   "twice" algorithm to recover from packet loss will successfully
   update the context and restore the compressed packets.

   The link sequence number cycles in 16 packets, so it's not always
   clear how many packets were lost.  For example, if the previous link
   sequence number was 5 and the current number is 4, one possibility is
   that 15 packets were lost, but another possibility is that due to
   misordering packet 5 arrived before packet 4 and they are really
   adjacent.  If there is an interpretation of the link sequence numbers
   that could be a gap of less than N+1, the "twice" algorithm may be
   applied that many times and verified with the UDP checksum (or the
   HDRCKSUM).

   When more than N packets are lost, all of the repetitions of an
   update might have been lost.  The context state may then be different
   at the compressor and decompressor.  The decompressor can still try
   to recover by making one or more guesses for how many packets were
   lost and then applying the "twice" algorithm that many times.

   However, since the IPv4 ID field is not included in the checksum,
   this does not validate the IPv4 ID.

   The conclusion is that for IPv4 if more than N packets were lost, the
   decompressor SHOULD NOT try to recover using the "twice" algorithm
   and instead SHOULD invalidate the context and send a CONTEXT_STATE
   packet.  In IPv6 the decompressor MAY always try to recover from
   packet loss by using the "twice" algorithm and verifying the result
   with the UDP checksum.

   It is up to the implementation to derive an appropriate N for a link.
   The value is maintained independently for each context and is not
   required to be the same for all contexts.  When compressing a new
   stream, the compressor sets a value of N for that context and sends
   N+1 FULL_HEADER packets.  The compressor MUST also repeat each
   subsequent COMPRESSED_UDP update N+1 times.  The value of N may be
   changed for an existing context by sending a new sequence of
   FULL_HEADER packets.

   The decompressor learns the value of N by counting the number of
   times the FULL_HEADER packet is repeated and storing the resulting
   value in the corresponding context.  If some of the FULL_HEADER
   packets are lost, the decompressor may still be able to determine the
   correct value of N by observing the change in the 4-bit sequence
   number carried in the FULL_HEADER packets.  Any inaccuracy in the
   counting will lead the decompressor to assume a smaller value of N
   than the compressor is sending.  This is safe in that the only
   negative consequence is that the decompressor might send a
   CONTEXT_STATE packet when it was not really necessary to do so.  In
   response, the compressor will send FULL_HEADER packets again,
   providing another opportunity for the decompressor to count the
   correct N.

   The sending of FULL_HEADER packets is also triggered by a change in
   one of the fields held constant in the context, such as the IP TOS.
   If such a change should occur while the compressor is in the middle
   of sending the N+1 FULL_HEADER packets, then the compressor MUST send
   N+1 FULL_HEADER packets after making the change.  This could cause
   the decompressor to receive more than N+1 FULL_HEADER packets in a
   row with the result that it assumes a larger value for N than is
   correct.  That could lead to an undetected loss of context
   synchronization.  Therefore, the compressor MUST change the
   "generation" number in the context and in the FULL_HEADER packet when
   it begins sending the sequence of N+1 FULL_HEADER packets so the
   decompressor can detect the new sequence.  For IPv4, this is a change
   in behavior relative to RFC 2508.

   CONTEXT_STATE packets SHOULD also be repeated N+1 times (using the
   same sequence number for each context) to provide a similar measure
   of robustness against packet loss.  Here N can be the largest N of
   all contexts included in the CONTEXT_STATE packet, or any number the
   decompressor finds necessary in order to ensure robustness.

2.3.1.  Examples

   Here are some examples to demonstrate the robust operation of
   enhanced CRTP using N+1 repetitions of updates.  In this stream the
   audio codec sends a sample every 10 milliseconds.  The first
   talkspurt is 1 second long.  Then there are 2 seconds of silence,
   then another talkspurt.  We also assume in this first example that
   the IPv4 ID field does not increment at a constant rate because the
   host is generating other uncorrelated traffic streams at the same
   time and therefore the delta IPv4 ID changes for each packet.

   In these examples, we will use some short notations:

    FH    FULL_HEADER
    CR    COMPRESSED_RTP
    CU    COMPRESSED_UDP

   When operating on a link with low loss, we can just use
   COMPRESSED_RTP packets in the basic CRTP method specified in RFC
   2508.  We might have the following packet sequence:

    seq Time pkt    updates and comments
     #       type
    1   10   FH
    2   20   CR     dI dT=10
    3   30   CR     dI
    4   40   CR     dI
    ...
    100 1000 CR     dI

    101 3010 CR     dI dT=2010
    102 3020 CR     dI dT=10
    103 3030 CR     dI
    104 3040 CR     dI
    ...

   In the above sequence, if a packet is lost we cannot recover ("twice"
   will not work due to the unpredictable IPv4 ID) and the context must
   be invalidated.

   Here is the same example using the enhanced CRTP method specified in
   this document, when N=2.  Note that the compressor only sends the
   absolute IPv4 ID (I) and not the delta IPv4 ID (dI).

    seq Time pkt  CU flags            updates and comments
     #       type F I dT dI M S T P
    1   10   FH
    2   20   FH                             repeat constant fields
    3   30   FH                             repeat constant fields
    4   40   CU   1 1  1  0 M 0 1 0   I T=40 dT=10
    5   50   CU   1 1  1  0 M 0 1 0   I T=50 dT=10 repeat update T & dT
    6   60   CU   1 1  1  0 M 0 1 0   I T=60 dT=10 repeat update T & dT
    7   70   CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 0 0   I
    8   80   CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 0 0   I
    ...
    100 1000 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 0 0   I

    101 3010 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 1 0   I T=3010  T changed, keep deltas
    102 3020 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 1 0   I T=3020  repeat updated T
    103 3030 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 1 0   I T=3030  repeat updated T
    104 3040 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 0 0   I
    105 3050 CU   1 1  0  0 M 0 0 0   I
    ...

   This second example is the same sequence, but assuming the delta IP
   ID is constant.  First the basic CRTP for a lossless link:

    seq Time pkt    updates and comments
     #       type
    1   10   FH
    2   20   CR     dI dT=10
    3   30   CR
    4   40   CR
    ...
    100 1000 CR

    101 3010 CR     dT=2010
    102 3020 CR     dT=10
    103 3030 CR
    104 3040 CR
    ...

   For the equivalent sequence in enhanced CRTP, the more efficient
   COMPRESSED_RTP packet can still be used once the deltas are all
   established:

    seq Time pkt  CU flags            updates and comments
     #       type F I dT dI M S T P
    1   10   FH
    2   20   FH                             repeat constant fields
    3   30   FH                             repeat constant fields
    4   40   CU   1 1  1  1 M 0 1 0   I dI T=40 dT=10
    5   50   CU   1 1  1  1 M 0 1 0   I dI T=50 dT=10  repeat updates
    6   60   CU   1 1  1  1 M 0 1 0   I dI T=60 dT=10  repeat updates
    7   70   CR
    8   80   CR
    ...
    100 1000 CR

    101 3010 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3010  T changed, keep deltas
    102 3020 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3020  repeat updated T
    103 3030 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3030  repeat updated T
    104 3040 CR
    105 3050 CR
    ...

   Here is the second example when using IPv6.  First the basic CRTP for
   a lossless link:

    seq Time pkt    updates and comments
     #       type
    1   10   FH
    2   20   CR     dT=10
    3   30   CR
    4   40   CR
    ...
    100 1000 CR

    101 3010 CR     dT=2010
    102 3020 CR     dT=10
    103 3030 CR
    104 3040 CR
    ...

   For the equivalent sequence in enhanced CRTP, the more efficient
   COMPRESSED_RTP packet can still be used once the deltas are all
   established:

    seq Time pkt  CU flags            updates and comments
     #       type F I dT dI M S T P
    1   10   FH
    2   20   FH                             repeat constant fields
    3   30   FH                             repeat constant fields
    4   40   CU   1 0  1  0 M 0 1 0   T=40 dT=10
    5   50   CU   1 0  1  0 M 0 1 0   T=50 dT=10  repeat updates
    6   60   CU   1 0  1  0 M 0 1 0   T=60 dT=10  repeat updates
    7   70   CR
    8   80   CR
    ...
    100 1000 CR

    101 3010 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3010  T changed, keep deltas
    102 3020 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3020  repeat updated T
    103 3030 CU   1 0  0  0 M 0 1 0   T=3030  repeat updated T
    104 3040 CR
    105 3050 CR
    ...

3.  Negotiating usage of enhanced-CRTP

   The use of IP/UDP/RTP compression (CRTP) over a particular link is a
   function of the link-layer protocol.  It is expected that negotiation
   of the use of CRTP will be defined separately for each link layer.

   For link layers that already have defined a negotiation for the use
   of CRTP as specified in RFC 2508, an extension to that negotiation
   will be required to indicate use of the enhanced CRTP defined in this
   document since the syntax of the existing packet formats has been
   extended.

4.  Security Considerations

   Because encryption eliminates the redundancy that this compression
   scheme tries to exploit, there is some inducement to forego
   encryption in order to achieve operation over a low-bandwidth link.
   However, for those cases where encryption of data and not headers is
   satisfactory, RTP does specify an alternative encryption method in
   which only the RTP payload is encrypted and the headers are left in
   the clear [SRTP].  That would allow compression to still be applied.

   A malfunctioning or malicious compressor could cause the decompressor
   to reconstitute packets that do not match the original packets but
   still have valid IP, UDP and RTP headers and possibly even valid UDP
   check-sums.  Such corruption may be detected with end-to-end
   authentication and integrity mechanisms which will not be affected by
   the compression.  Constant portions of authentication headers will be
   compressed as described in [IPHCOMP].

   No authentication is performed on the CONTEXT_STATE control packet
   sent by this protocol.  An attacker with access to the link between
   the decompressor and compressor could inject false CONTEXT_STATE
   packets and cause compression efficiency to be reduced, probably
   resulting in congestion on the link.  However, an attacker with
   access to the link could also disrupt the traffic in many other ways.

   A potential denial-of-service threat exists when using compression
   techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end computational load. The
   attacker can inject pathological datagrams into the stream which are
   complex to decompress and cause the receiver to be overloaded and
   degrading processing of other streams.  However, this compression
   does not exhibit any significant non-uniformity.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Van Jacobson, co-author of RFC 2508,
   and the authors of RFC 2507, Mikael Degermark, Bjorn Nordgren, and
   Stephen Pink.  The authors would also like to thank Dana Blair,
   Francois Le Faucheur, Tim Gleeson, Matt Madison, Hussein Salama,
   Mallik Tatipamula, Mike Thomas, Alex Tweedly, Herb Wildfeuer,
   Andrew Johnson, and Dan Wing.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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

   [IPHCOMP] Degermark, M., Nordgren, B. and S. Pink, "IP Header
             Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999.

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

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

   [RTP]     Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson,
             "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
             3550, July 2003.

6.2.  Informative References

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

   [SRTP]    Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Carrara, E., Naslund, M. and K.
             Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol", Work in
             Progress.

7.  Intellectual Property Rights Notice

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

8.  Authors' Addresses

   Tmima Koren
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   USA

   EMail: tmima@cisco.com

   Stephen L. Casner
   Packet Design
   3400 Hillview Avenue, Building 3
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   USA

   EMail: casner@acm.org

   John Geevarghese
   Motorola India Electronics Ltd.
   No. 33 A Ulsoor Road
   Bangalore, India

   EMail: geevjohn@hotmail.com

   Bruce Thompson
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   USA

   EMail: brucet@cisco.com

   Patrick Ruddy
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3rd Floor
   96 Commercial Street
   Leith, Edinburgh  EH6 6LX
   Scotland

   EMail: pruddy@cisco.com

9.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

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

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

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

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

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA