Network Working Group M. Higashiyama
Request for Comments: 3518 Anritsu
Obsoletes: 2878 F. Baker
Category: Standards Track T. Liao
Cisco Systems
April 2003
Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
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
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method for
transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. PPP
defines an extensible Link Control Protocol (LCP) and proposes a
family of Network Control Protocols (NCP) for establishing and
configuring different network-layer protocols.
This document defines the NCP for establishing and configuring Remote
Bridging for PPP links.
This document obsoletes RFC 2878, which was based on the IEEE
802.1D-1993 MAC Bridge. This document extends that specification by
improving support for bridge control packets.
Table of Contents
1. Historical Perspective ................................ 2
1.1 Requirements Keywords ............................ 3
2. Methods of Bridging ................................... 3
2.1 Transparent Bridging ............................. 3
2.2 Remote Transparent Bridging ...................... 4
2.3 Source Routing ................................... 5
2.4 Remote Source Route Bridging ..................... 6
2.5 SR-TB Translational Bridging ..................... 7
3. Traffic Services ...................................... 7
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
3.1 LAN Frame Checksum Preservation .................. 7
3.2 Traffic having no LAN Frame Checksum ............. 7
3.3 Tinygram Compression ............................. 8
3.4 Virtual LANs ..................................... 8
3.5 Bridge Control Packet Indicator .................. 9
4. A PPP Network Control Protocol for Bridging ........... 10
4.1 Sending Bridge Frames ........................... 11
4.1.1 Maximum Receive Unit Considerations ....... 11
4.1.2 Loopback and Link Quality Monitoring ...... 11
4.1.3 Message Sequence .......................... 11
4.1.4 Separation of Spanning Tree Domains ....... 12
4.2 Bridged LAN Traffic in IEEE 802 Untagged Frame ... 13
4.3 Bridged LAN Traffic in IEEE 802 Tagged Frame ..... 17
4.4 Bridge management protocol data unit ............. 21
5. BCP Configuration Options ............................. 22
5.1 Bridge-Identification ............................ 22
5.2 Line-Identification .............................. 24
5.3 MAC-Support ...................................... 25
5.4 Tinygram-Compression ............................. 26
5.5 MAC-Address ...................................... 27
5.6 Spanning Tree Protocol (old formatted) ........... 28
5.7 IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame ............................ 30
5.8 Management-Inline ................................ 31
5.9 Bridge-Control-Packet-Indicator .................. 32
6. Changes From RFC 2878 ................................. 33
7. Security Considerations ............................... 33
8. Intellectual Property Notice .......................... 33
9. IANA Considerations ................................... 34
10. Acknowledgments ....................................... 34
Appendices ................................................ 35
A. Spanning Tree Bridge PDU (old formatted) ........ 35
B. Tinygram-Compression Pseudo-Code ................ 36
References ............................. .................. 38
Authors' Addresses ........................................ 39
Full Copyright Statement................................... 40
1. Historical Perspective
Two basic algorithms are ambient in the industry for Bridging of
Local Area Networks. The more common algorithm is called
"Transparent Bridging", and has been standardized for Extended LAN
configurations by IEEE 802.1. The other is called "Source Route
Bridging", and is prevalent on IEEE 802.5 Token Ring LANs.
The IEEE has combined these two methods into a device called a Source
Routing Transparent (SRT) bridge, which concurrently provides both
Source Route and Transparent bridging. Transparent and SRT bridges
are specified in IEEE standard 802.1D-1998 [8].
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Although IEEE committee 802.1G is addressing remote bridging [2],
neither standard directly defines the mechanisms for implementing
remote bridging. Technically, that would be beyond the IEEE 802
committee's charter. However, both 802.1D and 802.1G allow for it.
The implementor may model the line either as a component within a
single MAC Relay Entity, or as the LAN media between two remote
bridges.
The original IEEE 802.1D is augmented by IEEE 802.1Q [9] to provide
support for Virtual LAN. Virtual LAN is an integral feature of
switched LAN networks.
1.1 Requirements Keywords
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
document, are to be interpreted as described in [12].
2. Methods of Bridging
2.1. Transparent Bridging
As a favor to the uninitiated, let us first describe Transparent
Bridging. Essentially, the bridges in a network operate as isolated
entities, largely unaware of each others' presence. A Transparent
Bridge maintains a Forwarding Database consisting of
{address, interface}
or
{address, interface, VLAN ID}
records, by saving the Source Address of each LAN transmission that
it receives, along with the interface identifier for the interface it
was received on. Bridges which support Virtual LANs additionally
keep the Virtual LAN ID in their forwarding database. It goes on to
check whether the Destination Address is in the database, and if so,
either discards the message when the destination and source are
located at the same interface, or forwards the message to the
indicated interface. A message whose Destination Address is not
found in the table is forwarded to all interfaces except the one it
was received on. This behavior applies to Broadcast/Multicast frames
as well.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
The obvious fly in the ointment is that redundant paths in the
network cause indeterminate (nay, all too determinate) forwarding
behavior to occur. To prevent this, a protocol called the Spanning
Tree Protocol is executed between the bridges to detect and logically
remove redundant paths from the network.
One system is elected as the "Root", which periodically emits a
message called a Bridge Protocol Data Unit (BPDU), heard by all of
its neighboring bridges. Each of these modifies and passes the BPDU
on to its neighbors, until it arrives at the leaf LAN segments in the
network (where it dies, having no further neighbors to pass it
along), or until the message is stopped by a bridge which has a
superior path to the "Root". In this latter case, the interface the
BPDU was received on is ignored (it is placed in a Hot Standby
status, no traffic is emitted onto it except the BPDU, and all
traffic received from it is discarded), until a topology change
forces a recalculation of the network.
To establish Virtual LANs in an environment of multiple bridges, GVRP
(GARP VLAN Registration Protocol) is executed between bridges to
exchange Virtual LAN information. GVRP provides a mechanism to
dynamically establish and update their knowledge of the set of
Virtual LANs that currently have active members.
To reduce unnecessary multicast flooding in the network, bridges
exchange group MAC addresses using the GARP Multicast Registration
Protocol. GMRP provides a mechanism so that bridges can know which
multicast frames should be forwarded on each port.
2.2. Remote Transparent Bridging
There exist two basic sorts of bridges -- those that interconnect
LANs directly, called Local Bridges, and those that interconnect LANs
via an intermediate medium such as a leased line, called Remote
Bridges. PPP may be used to connect Remote Bridges.
The IEEE 802.1G Remote MAC Bridging committee has proposed a model of
a Remote Bridge in which a set of two or more Remote Bridges that are
interconnected via remote lines are termed a Remote Bridge Group.
Within a Group, a Remote Bridge Cluster is dynamically formed through
execution of the spanning tree as the set of bridges that may pass
frames among each other.
This model bestows on the remote lines the basic properties of a LAN,
but does not require a one-to-one mapping of lines to virtual LAN
segments. For instance, the model of three interconnected Remote
Bridges, A, B and C, may be that of a virtual LAN segment between A
and B and another between B and C. However, if a line exists between
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Remote Bridges B and C, a frame could actually be sent directly from
B to C, as long as there was the external appearance that it had
travelled through A.
IEEE 802.1G thus allows for a great deal of implementation freedom
for features such as route optimization and load balancing, as long
as the model is maintained.
For simplicity, we discuss Remote Bridging in this document in terms
of two Remote Bridges connected by a single line.
2.3. Source Routing
The IEEE 802.1D Committee has standardized Source Routing for any MAC
Type that allows its use. Currently, MAC Types that support Source
Routing are FDDI and IEEE 802.5 Token Ring.
The IEEE standard defines Source Routing only as a component of an
SRT bridge. However, many bridges have been implemented which are
capable of performing Source Routing alone. These are most commonly
implemented in accordance either with the IBM Token-Ring Network
Architecture Reference [1] or with the Source Routing Appendix of
IEEE 802.1D-1998 [8].
In the Source Routing approach, the originating system has the
responsibility of indicating the path that the message should follow.
It does this, if the message is directed off of the local segment, by
including a variable length MAC header extension called the Routing
Information Field (RIF). The RIF consists of one 16-bit word of
flags and parameters, followed by zero or more segment-and-bridge
identifiers. Each bridge en route determines from this source route
list whether it should accept the message and how to forward it.
In order to discover the path to a destination, the originating
system transmits an Explorer frame. An All-Routes Explorer (ARE)
frame follows all possible paths to a destination. A Spanning Tree
Explorer (STE) frame follows only those paths defined by Bridge ports
that the Spanning Tree Algorithm has put in Forwarding state. Port
states do not apply to ARE or Specifically-Routed Frames. The
destination system replies to each copy of an ARE frame with a
Specifically-Routed Frame, and to an STE frame with an ARE frame. In
either case, the originating station may receive multiple replies,
from which it chooses the route it will use for future Specifically-
Routed Frames.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
The algorithm for Source Routing requires the bridge to be able to
identify any interface by its segment-and-bridge identifier. When a
packet is received that has the RIF present, a boolean in the RIF is
inspected to determine whether the segment-and-bridge identifiers are
to be inspected in "forward" or "reverse" sense. In its search, the
bridge looks for the segment-and-bridge identifier of the interface
the packet was received on, and forwards the packet toward the
segment identified in the segment-and-bridge identifier that follows
it.
GVRP and GMRP are available and effective on Source Routing networks.
2.4. Remote Source Route Bridging
There is no Remote Source Route Bridge proposal in IEEE 802.1 at this
time, although many vendors ship remote Source Routing Bridges.
We allow for modelling the line either as a connection residing
between two halves of a "split" Bridge (the split-bridge model), or
as a LAN segment between two Bridges (the independent-bridge model).
In the latter case, the line requires a LAN Segment ID.
By default, PPP Source Route Bridges use the independent-bridge
model. This requirement ensures interoperability in the absence of
option negotiation. In order to use the split-bridge model, a system
MUST successfully negotiate the Bridge-Identification Configuration
Option.
Although no option negotiation is required for a system to use the
independent-bridge model, it is strongly recommended that systems
using this model negotiate the Line-Identification Configuration
Option. Doing so will verify correct configuration of the LAN
Segment Id assigned to the line.
When two PPP systems use the split-bridge model, the system that
transmits an Explorer frame onto the PPP link MUST update the RIF on
behalf of the two systems. The purpose of this constraint is to
ensure interoperability and to preserve the simplicity of the
bridging algorithm. For example, if the receiving system did not
know whether the transmitting system had updated the RIF, it would
have to scan the RIF and decide whether to update it. The choice of
the transmitting system for the role of updating the RIF allows the
system receiving the frame from the PPP link to forward the frame
without processing the RIF.
Given that source routing is configured on a line or set of lines,
the specifics of the link state with respect to STE frames are
defined by the Spanning Tree Protocol in use. Choice of the split-
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
bridge or independent-bridge model does not affect spanning tree
operation. In both cases, the spanning tree protocol is executed on
the two systems independently.
2.5. SR-TB Translational Bridging
IEEE 802 is not currently addressing bridges that translate between
Transparent Bridging and Source Routing. For the purposes of this
standard, such a device is either a Transparent or a Source Routing
bridge, and will act on the line in one of these two ways, just as it
does on the LAN.
3. Traffic Services
Several services are provided for the benefit of different system
types and user configurations. These include LAN Frame Checksum
Preservation, LAN Frame Checksum Generation, Tinygram Compression,
and the identification of closed sets of LANs.
3.1. LAN Frame Checksum Preservation
IEEE 802.1 stipulates that the Extended LAN must enjoy the same
probability of undetected error that an individual LAN enjoys.
Although there has been considerable debate concerning the algorithm,
no other algorithm has been proposed than having the LAN Frame
Checksum received by the ultimate receiver be the same value
calculated by the original transmitter. Achieving this requires, of
course, that the line protocols preserve the LAN Frame Checksum from
end to end. The protocol is optimized towards this approach.
3.2. Traffic having no LAN Frame Checksum
The fact that the protocol is optimized towards LAN Frame Checksum
preservation raises twin questions: "What is the approach to be used
by systems which, for whatever reason, cannot easily support Frame
Checksum preservation?" and "What is the approach to be used when the
system originates a message, which therefore has no Frame Checksum
precalculated?".
Surely, one approach would be to require stations to calculate the
Frame Checksum in software if hardware support were unavailable; this
would meet with profound dismay, and would raise serious questions of
interpretation in a Bridge/Router.
However, stations which implement LAN Frame Checksum preservation
must already solve this problem, as they do originate traffic.
Therefore, the solution adopted is that messages which have no Frame
Checksum are tagged and carried across the line.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
When a system which does not implement LAN Frame Checksum
preservation receives a frame having an embedded FCS, it converts it
for its own use by removing the trailing four octets. When any
system forwards a frame which contains no embedded FCS to a LAN, it
forwards it in a way which causes the FCS to be calculated.
3.3. Tinygram Compression
An issue in remote Ethernet bridging is that the protocols that are
most attractive to bridge are prone to problems on low speed (64 KBPS
and below) lines. This can be partially alleviated by observing that
the vendors defining these protocols often fill the PDU with octets
of ZERO. Thus, an Ethernet or IEEE 802.3 PDU received from a line
that is (1) smaller than the minimum PDU size, and (2) has a LAN
Frame Checksum present, must be padded by inserting zeroes between
the last four octets and the rest of the PDU before transmitting it
on a LAN. These protocols are frequently used for interactive
sessions, and therefore are frequently this small.
To prevent ambiguity, PDUs requiring padding are explicitly tagged.
Compression is at the option of the transmitting station, and is
probably performed only on low speed lines, perhaps under
configuration control.
The pseudo-code in Appendix B describes the algorithms.
3.4. Virtual LANs
IEEE 802.1Q defines Virtual LANs and their exchangeable VLAN Tagged
frame format. Virtual LANs allow user multiple community groups to
co-exist within one bridge. A bridging community is identified by
its VLAN ID. If a system that supports Virtual LANs receives a frame
from the LAN, that frame will be only emitted onto a LAN which
belongs to the same community. In order to handle multiple
communities on a single line, IEEE 802.1Q defines a VLAN Tagged
Frame.
For example, suppose you have the following configuration:
E1 +--+ +--+ E3
------------| | | |------------
| | W1 | |
|B1|------------|B2|
E2 | | | | E4
------------| | | |------------
+--+ +--+
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
E1, E2, E3, and E4 are Ethernet LANs (or Token Ring, FDDI, etc.). W1
is a WAN (PPP over T1). B1 and B2 are MAC level bridges.
You want End Stations on E1 and E3 to communicate, and you want End
Stations on E2 and E4 to communicate, but you do not want End
Stations on E1 and E3 to communicate with End Stations on E2 and E4.
This is true for Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast traffic. If a
broadcast datagram originates on E1, you want it only to be
propagated to E3, and not on E2 or E4.
Another way of looking at it is that E1 and E3 form a Virtual LAN,
and E2 and E4 form a Virtual LAN, as if the following configuration
were actually being used:
E1 +--+ W2 +--+ E3
------------|B3|------------|B4|------------
+--+ +--+
E2 +--+ W3 +--+ E4
------------|B5|------------|B6|------------
+--+ +--+
3.5. Bridge Control Packet Indicator
The Bridge Control Packet Indicator option is used to classify bridge
control packets such as Spanning Tree BPDUs, GARP PDUs, etc.
Protocols such as STP and GARP is to the bridging world as OSPF or
BGP is to the routing world. Just as IP route update packets are
marked with an IP precedence value of 6 or 7 and given preferential
forwarding treatment [13], bridge control packets are marked in a
similar fashion with the Bridge Control Packet Indicator bit.
If the Bridge Control Packet Indicator option is enabled, a system
MUST set a packet's Bridge Control Packet Indicator bit in the flags
field to 1 if and only if it is an outgoing bridge control frame.
Furthermore, a system MUST avoid dropping or significantly delaying
bridge control packets.
If the Bridge Control Packet Indicator option is disabled, a system
MUST set the Bridge Control Packet Indicator bit to 0 for all frames.
This preserves backward compatibility with RFC 2878 [14]. However,
even if this option is disabled, a system SHOULD still avoid dropping
or significantly delaying bridge control packets. This can be
achieved through parsing the Destination MAC address field.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
4. A PPP Network Control Protocol for Bridging
The Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) is responsible for configuring,
enabling and disabling the bridge protocol modules on both ends of
the point-to-point link. BCP uses the same packet exchange mechanism
as the Link Control Protocol. BCP packets may not be exchanged until
PPP has reached the Network-Layer Protocol phase. BCP packets
received before this phase is reached SHOULD be silently discarded.
The Bridging Control Protocol is exactly the same as the Link Control
Protocol [6] with the following exceptions:
Frame Modifications
The packet may utilize any modifications to the basic frame format
which have been negotiated during the Link Establishment phase.
Implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate Address-and-Control-Field-
Compression or Protocol-Field-Compression on other than low speed
links.
Data Link Layer Protocol Field
Exactly one BCP packet is encapsulated in the PPP Information
field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates type hex 8031 (BCP).
Code field
Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack,
Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request, Terminate-Ack
and Code-Reject) are used. Other Codes SHOULD be treated as
unrecognized and SHOULD result in Code-Rejects.
Timeouts
BCP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the
Network-Layer Protocol phase. An implementation SHOULD be
prepared to wait for Authentication and Link Quality Determination
to finish before timing out waiting for a Configure-Ack or other
response. It is suggested that an implementation give up only
after user intervention or a configurable amount of time.
Configuration Option Types
BCP has a distinct set of Configuration Options, which are defined
in this document.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
4.1. Sending Bridge Frames
Before any Bridged LAN Traffic or BPDUs may be communicated, PPP MUST
reach the Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the Bridging Control
Protocol MUST reach the Opened state.
Exactly one Bridged LAN Traffic or BPDU is encapsulated in the PPP
Information field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates type hex
0031 (Bridged PDU).
4.1.1. Maximum Receive Unit Considerations
The maximum length of a Bridged datagram transmitted over a PPP link
is the same as the maximum length of the Information field of a PPP
encapsulated packet. Since there is no standard method for
fragmenting and reassembling Bridged PDUs, PPP links supporting
Bridging MUST negotiate an MRU large enough to support the MAC Types
that are later negotiated for Bridging support. Because they include
the MAC headers, even bridged Ethernet frames are larger than the
default PPP MRU of 1500 octets.
4.1.2. Loopback and Link Quality Monitoring
It is strongly recommended that PPP Bridge Protocol implementations
utilize Magic Number Loopback Detection and Link-Quality-Monitoring.
The 802.1 Spanning Tree protocol, which is integral to both
Transparent Bridging and Source Routing (as standardized), is
unidirectional during normal operation. Configuration BPDUs emanate
from the Root system in the general direction of the leaves, without
any reverse traffic except in response to network events.
4.1.3. Message Sequence
The multiple link case requires consideration of message
sequentiality. The transmitting system may determine either that the
protocol being bridged requires transmissions to arrive in the order
of their original transmission, and enqueue all transmissions on a
given conversation onto the same link to force order preservation, or
that the protocol does NOT require transmissions to arrive in the
order of their original transmission, and use that knowledge to
optimize the utilization of several links, enqueuing traffic to
multiple links to minimize delay.
In the absence of such a determination, the transmitting system MUST
act as though all protocols require order preservation. Many
protocols designed primarily for use on a single LAN require order
preservation.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
PPP Multilink [7] and its multi-class extension [11] may be used to
allow the use of multiple PPP links between a pair of systems without
loss of message sequentiality. It treats the group of links as a
single link with speed equal to the sum of the speeds of the links in
the group.
4.1.4. Separation of Spanning Tree Domains
It is conceivable that a network manager might wish to inhibit the
exchange of BPDUs on a link in order to logically divide two regions
into separate Spanning Trees with different Roots (and potentially
different Spanning Tree implementations or algorithms). In order to
do that, he should configure both ends to not exchange BPDUs on a
link. An implementation that does not support any spanning tree
protocol MUST silently discard any received IEEE 802.1D BPDU packets.
If a bridge is connected to an old BCP bridge [10], the other bridge
cannot operate according to this specification. Options are
therefore to decide that:
(a) If the bridge wants to terminate the connection, it sends a
Terminate-Request and terminate the connection.
(b) If the bridge wants to run the connection but not receive old
BPDUs, its only option is to run without spanning tree on the
link at all, which is dangerous. It should Configure-Reject the
option and advise the network administration that it has done so.
(c) If the bridge chooses to be entirely backward compatible, it
sends Configure-Ack and operates in the manner described in
Appendix A.
In the event that both the new Management-Inline Option and the
Spanning-Tree-Protocol-Configuration Option are configure-rejected,
indicating that the peer implements no spanning tree protocol at all
and doesn't understand the options, it is an incomplete
implementation. For safety reasons the system should cease
attempting to configure bridging, and log the fact. If the peer was
configure-rejecting the options in order to disable spanning tree
entirely, it understood the option but could not within its
configuration comply. It should have sent the Spanning-Tree-
Protocol-Configuration Option with the value NULL.
Implementations SHOULD implement a backward compatibility mode.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
4.2. Bridged LAN Traffic (IEEE 802 Untagged Frame)
For Bridging LAN traffic, the format of the frame on the line is
shown below. This format is used if the traffic does not include
VLAN ID and priority.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
802.3 Frame format (IEEE 802 Un-tagged Frame)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address and Control | 0x00 | 0x31 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|0|Z|B| Pads | MAC Type | Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address | Length/Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LLC data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAN FCS (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| potential line protocol pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame FCS | HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
802.4/802.5/FDDI Frame format (IEEE 802 Un-tagged Frame)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address and Control | 0x00 | 0x31 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|0|Z|B| Pads | MAC Type | Pad Byte | Frame Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address | Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LLC data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAN FCS (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| optional Data Link Layer padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame FCS | HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address and Control
As defined by the framing in use.
PPP Protocol
0x0031 for PPP Bridging
Flags
bit F: Set if the LAN FCS Field is present
bit 0: reserved, must be zero
bit Z: Set if IEEE 802.3 Pad must be zero filled to minimum size
bit B: Set if the frame is a bridge control packet. See section
3.5 for details.
Pads
Any PPP frame may have padding inserted in the "Optional Data Link
Layer Padding" field. This number tells the receiving system how
many pad octets to strip off.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
MAC Type
Up-to-date values of the MAC Type field are specified in the most
recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [4]. Current values are assigned as
follows:
0: reserved
1: IEEE 802.3/Ethernet with canonical addresses
2: IEEE 802.4 with canonical addresses
3: IEEE 802.5 with non-canonical addresses
4: FDDI with non-canonical addresses
5-10: reserved
11: IEEE 802.5 with canonical addresses
12: FDDI with canonical addresses
"Canonical" is the address format defined as standard address
representation by the IEEE. In this format, the bit within each
byte that is to be transmitted first on a LAN is represented as
the least significant bit. In contrast, in non-canonical form,
the bit within each byte that is to be transmitted first is
represented as the most-significant bit. Many LAN interface
implementations use non-canonical form. In both formats, bytes
are represented in the order of transmission.
If an implementation supports a MAC Type that is the higher-
numbered format of that MAC Type, then it MUST also support the
lower-numbered format of that MAC Type. For example, if an
implementation supports FDDI with canonical address format, then
it MUST also support FDDI with non-canonical address format. The
purpose of this requirement is to provide backward compatibility
with earlier versions of this specification.
A system MUST NOT transmit a MAC Type numbered higher than 4
unless it has received from its peer a MAC-Support Configuration
Option indicating that the peer is willing to receive frames of
that MAC Type.
Frame Control
On 802.4, 802.5, and FDDI LANs, there are a few octets preceding
the Destination MAC Address, one of which is protected by the FCS.
The MAC Type of the frame determines the contents of the Frame
Control field. A pad octet is present to provide 32-bit packet
alignment.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Destination MAC Address
As defined by the IEEE. The MAC Type field defines the bit
ordering.
Source MAC Address
As defined by the IEEE. The MAC Type field defines the bit
ordering.
LLC data
This is the remainder of the MAC frame which is (or would be were
it present) protected by the LAN FCS.
For example, the 802.5 Access Control field, and Status Trailer
are not meaningful to transmit to another ring, and are omitted.
LAN FCS
If present, this is the LAN FCS which was calculated by (or which
appears to have been calculated by) the originating station. If
the LAN FCS flag is not set, then this field is not present, and
the PDU is four octets shorter.
Optional Data Link Layer Padding
Any PPP frame may have padding inserted between the Information
field and the Frame FCS. The Pads field contains the length of
this padding, which may not exceed 15 octets.
The PPP LCP Extensions [5] specify a self-describing pad.
Implementations are encouraged to set the Pads field to zero, and
use the self-describing pad instead.
Frame FCS
Mentioned primarily for clarity. The FCS used on the PPP link is
separate from and unrelated to the LAN FCS.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
4.3. Bridged LAN Traffic in IEEE 802 Tagged Frame
To connect two or more Virtual LAN segments, the frame MUST include
its VLAN ID and priority. An IEEE 802 Tagged Frame may be used if
the IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame Option is accepted by the peer. The format
of the frame on the line is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
802.3 Frame format (IEEE 802 Tagged Frame)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address and Control | 0x00 | 0x31 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|0|Z|B| Pads | MAC Type | Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address | 0x81 | 0x00 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Pri |C| VLAN ID | Length/Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LLC data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAN FCS (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| potential line protocol pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame FCS | HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
802.4/802.5/FDDI Frame format (IEEE 802 Tagged Frame)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address and Control | 0x00 | 0x31 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|0|Z|B| Pads | MAC Type | Pad Byte | Frame Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination MAC Address | Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SNAP-encoded TPID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SNAP-encoded TPID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Pri |C| VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LLC data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAN FCS (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| optional Data Link Layer padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame FCS | HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address and Control
As defined by the framing in use.
PPP Protocol
0x0031 for PPP Bridging
Flags
bit F: Set if the LAN FCS Field is present
bit 0: reserved, must be zero
bit Z: Set if IEEE 802.3 Pad must be zero filled to minimum size
bit B: Set if the frame is a bridge control packet. See section
3.5 for details.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Pads
Any PPP frame may have padding inserted in the "Optional Data Link
Layer Padding" field. This number tells the receiving system how
many pad octets to strip off.
MAC Type
Up-to-date values of the MAC Type field are specified in the most
recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [4]. Current values are assigned as
follows:
0: reserved
1: IEEE 802.3/Ethernet with canonical addresses
2: IEEE 802.4 with canonical addresses
3: IEEE 802.5 with non-canonical addresses
4: FDDI with non-canonical addresses
5-10: reserved
11: IEEE 802.5 with canonical addresses
12: FDDI with canonical addresses
"Canonical" is the address format defined as standard address
representation by the IEEE. In this format, the bit within each
byte that is to be transmitted first on a LAN is represented as
the least significant bit. In contrast, in non-canonical form,
the bit within each byte that is to be transmitted first is
represented as the most-significant bit. Many LAN interface
implementations use non-canonical form. In both formats, bytes
are represented in the order of transmission.
If an implementation supports a MAC Type that is the higher-
numbered format of that MAC Type, then it MUST also support the
lower-numbered format of that MAC Type. For example, if an
implementation supports FDDI with canonical address format, then
it MUST also support FDDI with non-canonical address format. The
purpose of this requirement is to provide backward compatibility
with earlier versions of this specification.
A system MUST NOT transmit a MAC Type numbered higher than 4
unless it has received from its peer a MAC-Support Configuration
Option indicating that the peer is willing to receive frames of
that MAC Type.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Frame Control
On 802.4, 802.5, and FDDI LANs, there are a few octets preceding
the Destination MAC Address, one of which is protected by the FCS.
The MAC Type of the frame determines the contents of the Frame
Control field. A pad octet is present to provide 32-bit packet
alignment.
Destination MAC Address
As defined by the IEEE. The MAC Type field defines the bit
ordering.
Source MAC Address
As defined by the IEEE. The MAC Type field defines the bit
ordering.
Pri
3 bit priority value as defined by IEEE 802.1D.
C
Canonical flag as defined by IEEE 802.1Q. It must be set if RIF
data is present in the LLC data.
VLAN ID
12 bit VLAN identifier number as defined by IEEE 802.1Q.
LLC data
This is the remainder of the MAC frame which is (or would be were
it present) protected by the LAN FCS.
For example, the 802.5 Access Control field, and Status Trailer
are not meaningful to transmit to another ring, and are omitted.
LAN FCS
If present, this is the LAN FCS which was calculated by (or which
appears to have been calculated by) the originating station. If
the LAN FCS flag is not set, then this field is not present, and
the PDU is four octets shorter.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Optional Data Link Layer Padding
Any PPP frame may have padding inserted between the Information
field and the Frame FCS. The Pads field contains the length of
this padding, which may not exceed 15 octets.
The PPP LCP Extensions [5] specify a self-describing pad.
Implementations are encouraged to set the Pads field to zero, and
use the self-describing pad instead.
Frame FCS
Mentioned primarily for clarity. The FCS used on the PPP link is
separate from and unrelated to the LAN FCS.
4.4. Bridge protocols and GARP protocols
To avoid network loops and improve redundancy, Bridges exchange a
Spanning Tree Protocol data unit known as BPDU. Bridges also
exchange a Generic Attributes Registration Protocol data unit to
carry the GARP VLAN Registration Protocol (GVRP) data and GARP
Multicast Registration Protocol (GMRP). GVRP allow the Bridges to
create VLAN groups dynamically. GMRP allows bridges to filter
Multicast data if the receiver is absent from the network. These
Bridge protocols include Spanning Tree Protocol and GARP protocols
data units are carried with a special destination address assigned by
the IEEE.
These bridge protocols data units and GARP protocol data units must
be carried in the frame format shown in section 4.2 or 4.3. The
Bridge that receives these data units identifies these protocols
based on the destination address in the frame format, just like the
operation of receiving frames from a LAN segment.
Bridge protocols and GARP protocols data units MUST be recognized by
checking the destination addresses, which are assigned by IEEE.
01-80-c2-00-00-00 Bridge Group Address (used by STP)
01-80-c2-00-00-01 IEEE Std. 802.3x Full Duplex PAUSE operation
01-80-c2-00-00-10 Bridge Management Group Address
01-80-c2-00-00-20 GARP Multicast Registration Protocol (GMRP)
01-80-c2-00-00-21 GARP VLAN Registration Protocol (GVRP)
But there is one exception to this rule: if the bridge is connected
to an old BCP bridge [10] and can support backward compatibility, it
MUST send the BPDU in the old format described in Appendix A.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
5. BCP Configuration Options
BCP Configuration Options allow modifications to the standard
characteristics of the network-layer protocol to be negotiated. If a
Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request packet,
the default value for that Configuration Option is assumed.
BCP uses the same Configuration Option format defined for LCP [6],
with a separate set of Options.
Up-to-date values of the BCP Option Type field are specified in the
most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [4]. Current values are assigned
as follows:
1 Bridge-Identification
2 Line-Identification
3 MAC-Support
4 Tinygram-Compression
5 LAN-Identification (obsoleted)
6 MAC-Address
7 Spanning-Tree-Protocol (old formatted)
8 IEEE 802 Tagged Frame
9 Management Inline
10 Bridge Control Packet Indicator
5.1. Bridge-Identification
Description
The Bridge-Identification Configuration Option is designed for use
when the line is an interface between half bridges connecting
virtual or physical LAN segments. Since these remote bridges are
modeled as a single bridge with a strange internal interface, each
remote bridge needs to know the LAN segment and bridge numbers of
the adjacent remote bridge. This option MUST NOT be included in
the same Configure-Request as the Line-Identification option.
The Source Routing Route Descriptor and its use are specified by
the IEEE 802.1D Appendix on Source Routing. It identifies the
segment to which the interface is attached by its configured
segment number, and itself by bridge number on the segment.
The two half bridges MUST agree on the bridge number. If a bridge
number is not agreed upon, the Bridging Control Protocol MUST NOT
enter the Opened state.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Since mismatched bridge numbers are indicative of a configuration
error, a correct configuration requires that either the bridge
declare the misconfiguration or choose one of the options. To
allow two systems to proceed to the Opened state despite a
mismatch, a system MAY change its bridge number to the higher of
the two numbers. A higher-numbered system MUST NOT change its
bridge number to a lower number. It should, however, inform the
network administration of the misconfiguration in any case.
By default, a system that does not negotiate this option is
assumed to be configured not to use the model of the two systems
as two halves of a single source-route bridge. It is instead
assumed to be configured to use the model of the two systems as
two independent bridges.
Example
If System A announces LAN Segment AAA, Bridge #1, and System B
announces LAN Segment BBB, Bridge #1, then the resulting Source
Routing configuration (read in the appropriate direction) is then
AAA,1,BBB.
A summary of the Bridge-Identification 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 | LAN Segment Number |Bridge#|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
1
Length
4
LAN Segment Number
A 12-bit number identifying the LAN segment, as defined in the
IEEE 802.1D Source Routing Specification.
Bridge Number
A 4-bit number identifying the bridge on the LAN segment, as
defined in the IEEE 802.1D Source Routing Specification.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
5.2. Line-Identification
Description
The Line-Identification Configuration Option is designed for use
when the line is assigned a LAN segment number as though it were a
two system LAN segment in accordance with the Source Routing
algorithm.
The Source Routing Route Descriptor and its use are specified by
the IEEE 802.1D Appendix on Source Routing. It identifies the
segment to which the interface is attached by its configured
segment number, and itself by bridge number on the segment.
The two bridges MUST agree on the LAN segment number. If a LAN
segment number is not agreed upon, the Bridging Control Protocol
MUST NOT enter the Opened state.
Since mismatched LAN segment numbers are indicative of a
configuration error, a correct configuration requires that either
the bridge declare the misconfiguration or choose one of the
options. To allow two systems to proceed to the Opened state
despite a mismatch, a system MAY change its LAN segment number to
the higher of the two numbers. A higher-numbered system MUST NOT
change its LAN segment number to a lower number. It should,
however, inform the network administration of the misconfiguration
in any case.
By default, a system that does not negotiate this option is
assumed to have its LAN segment number correctly configured by the
user.
A summary of the Line-Identification 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 | LAN Segment Number |Bridge#|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
2
Length
4
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
LAN Segment Number
A 12-bit number identifying the LAN segment, as defined in the
IEEE 802.1D Source Routing Specification.
Bridge Number
A 4-bit number identifying the bridge on the LAN segment, as
defined in the IEEE 802.1D Source Routing Specification.
5.3. MAC-Support
Description
The MAC-Support Configuration Option is provided to permit
implementations to indicate the sort of traffic they are prepared
to receive. Negotiation of this option is strongly recommended.
By default, when an implementation does not announce the MAC Types
that it supports, all MAC Types are sent by the peer which are
capable of being transported given other configuration parameters.
The receiver will discard those MAC Types that it does not
support.
A device supporting a 1600 octet MRU might not be willing to
support 802.5, 802.4 or FDDI, which each support frames larger
than 1600 octets.
By announcing the MAC Types it will support, an implementation is
advising its peer that all unspecified MAC Types will be
discarded. The peer MAY then reduce bandwidth usage by not
sending the unsupported MAC Types.
Announcement of support for multiple MAC Types is accomplished by
placing multiple options in the Configure-Request.
The nature of this option is advisory only. This option MUST NOT
be included in a Configure-Nak.
A summary of the MAC-Support Option format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | MAC Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Type
3
Length
3
MAC Type
One of the values of the PDU MAC Type field (previously described
in the "Bridged LAN Traffic" section) that this system is prepared
to receive and service.
5.4. Tinygram-Compression
Description
This Configuration Option permits the implementation to indicate
support for Tinygram compression.
Not all systems are prepared to make modifications to messages in
transit. On high speed lines, it is probably not worth the
effort.
This option MUST NOT be included in a Configure-Nak if it has been
received in a Configure-Request. This option MAY be included in a
Configure-Nak in order to prompt the peer to send the option in
its next Configure-Request.
By default, no compression is allowed. A system which does not
negotiate, or negotiates this option to be disabled, should never
receive a compressed packet.
A summary of the Tinygram-Compression Option format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Enable/Disable|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
4
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Length
3
Enable/Disable
If the value is 1, Tinygram-Compression is enabled. If the value
is 2, Tinygram-Compression is disabled, and no decompression will
occur.
The implementations need not agree on the setting of this
parameter. One may be willing to decompress and the other not.
5.5. MAC-Address
Description
The MAC-Address Configuration Option enables the implementation to
announce its MAC address or have one assigned. The MAC address is
represented in IEEE 802.1 Canonical format, which is to say that
the multicast bit is the least significant bit of the first octet
of the address.
If the system wishes to announce its MAC address, it sends the
option with its MAC address specified. When specifying a non-zero
MAC address in a Configure-Request, any inclusion of this option
in a Configure-Nak MUST be ignored.
If the implementation wishes to have a MAC address assigned, it
sends the option with a MAC address of 00-00-00-00-00-00. Systems
that have no mechanism for address assignment will Configure-
Reject the option.
A Configure-Nak MUST specify a valid IEEE 802.1 format physical
address; the multicast bit MUST be zero. It is strongly
recommended (although not mandatory) that the "locally assigned
address" bit (the second least significant bit in the first octet)
be set, indicating a locally assigned address.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
A summary of the MAC-Address 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 |MAC byte 1 |L|M| MAC byte 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC byte 3 | MAC byte 4 | MAC byte 5 | MAC byte 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
6
Length
8
MAC Byte
Six octets of MAC address in 802.1 Canonical order. For clarity,
the position of the Local Assignment (L) and Multicast (M) bits
are shown in the diagram.
5.6. Spanning-Tree-Protocol (old format)
Description
The Spanning-Tree-Protocol Configuration enables a Bridge to
remain compatible with older implementations of BCP [10]. This
configuration option is, however, incompatible with the
Management-Inline option, which enables a bridge to implement the
many protocols that IEEE now expects a bridge to be able to use.
If the peer rejects the Management-Inline configuration option, by
sending configure-reject, it must be an implementation of [10],
which is described in Appendix A. The system may optionally
terminate the negotiation or offer to negotiate in that manner.
In this case, if both bridges support a spanning tree protocol,
they MUST agree on the protocol to be supported. The old BPDU
described in Appendix A MUST be used rather than the format shown
in section 4.2 or 4.3. When the two disagree, the lower-numbered
of the two spanning tree protocols should be used. To resolve the
conflict, the system with the lower-numbered protocol SHOULD
Configure-Nak the option, suggesting its own protocol for use. If
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
a spanning tree protocol is not agreed upon, except for the case
in which one system does not support any spanning tree protocol,
the Bridging Control Protocol MUST NOT enter the Opened state.
Most systems will only participate in a single spanning tree
protocol. If a system wishes to participate simultaneously in
more than one spanning tree protocol, it MAY include all of the
appropriate protocol types in a single Spanning-Tree-Protocol
Configuration Option. The protocol types MUST be specified in
increasing numerical order. For the purpose of comparison during
negotiation, the protocol numbers MUST be considered to be a
single number. For instance, if System A includes protocols 01
and 03 and System B indicates protocol 03, System B should
Configure-Nak and indicate a protocol type of 03 since 0103 is
greater than 03.
By default, an implementation MUST either support the IEEE 802.1D
spanning tree or support no spanning tree protocol. An
implementation that does not support any spanning tree protocol
MUST silently discard any received IEEE 802.1D BPDU packets, and
MUST either silently discard or respond to other received BPDU
packets with an LCP Protocol-Reject packet in this case.
A summary of the Spanning-Tree-Protocol 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 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Type | Length | Protocol 1 | Protocol 2 | ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Type
7
Length
2 octets plus 1 additional octet for each protocol that will be
actively supported. Most systems will only support a single
spanning tree protocol, resulting in a length of 3.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Protocol n
Each Protocol field is one octet and indicates a desired spanning
tree protocol. Up-to-date values of the Spanning-Tree-Protocol
field are specified as PPP DLL numbers in the most recent
"Assigned Numbers" RFC [4]. Current values are assigned as
follows:
Value Protocol
0 Null (no Spanning Tree protocol supported)
1 IEEE 802.1D spanning tree
2 IEEE 802.1G extended spanning tree protocol
3 IBM Source Route Spanning tree protocol
4 DEC LANbridge 100 Spanning tree protocol
5.7. IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame
Description
This configuration option permits the implementation to indicate
support for IEEE 802 Tagged Frame. Negotiation of this option is
strongly recommended.
A device supporting IEEE 802 Tagged Frame must be willing to
support IEEE 802 Tagged Frame shown in section 4.3.
By default, IEEE 802 Tagged Frame is not supported. A system
which does not negotiate, or negotiates this option to be
disabled, should never receive a IEEE 802 Tagged Frame.
A summary of the IEEE 802 Tagged Frame Option format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Enable/Disable|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
8
Length
3
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Enable/Disable
If the value is 1, IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame is enabled. If the value
is 2, IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame is disabled, and MUST not send any
IEEE-802-Tagged-Frame packet.
5.8. Management-Inline
Description
The Management-Inline Configuration Option indicates that the
system is willing to receive any IEEE-defined inter-bridge
protocols, such as bridge protocol data units and GARP protocol
data units, in the frame format shown in section 4.2 or 4.3.
Old BCP [10] implementations will use the negotiation procedure
described in section 5.6. Implementations of this procedure will
use this option to indicate compliance with the new BCP and may
optionally negotiate the section 5.6 procedure, either on the same
configure-request or in response to a configure-reject, as well.
It is recommended that the configure-request only show this option
when it is relevant, and that it reply with the Spanning-Tree-
Protocol (old formatted) option if a configure-reject is received,
as in the normal case one can expect it to be the quickest
negotiation.
If a system receives a configure-request offering both
alternatives, it should accept this procedure and reject the
Spanning-Tree-Protocol (old format) option.
One can expect old BCP [10] implementations to not understand the
option and issue a configure-reject.
By default, Management-Inline is not allowed. A system which does
not negotiate, or negotiates this option to be disabled, should
never receive a Bridge Protocol data unit or GARP protocol data
unit inline.
A summary of the Management-Inline 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Type
9
Length
2
5.9 Bridge-Control-Packet-Indicator
Description
This configuration option permits the implementation to indicate
support for Bridge Control Packet Indicator. Negotiation of this
option is strongly recommended.
By default, Bridge Control Packet Indicator is not supported.
Negotiating this option enables the Bridge Control Packet
Indicator. Not negotiating this option disables the Bridge
Control Packet Indicator.
A system which does not negotiate MUST never send or receive a
frame with the Bridge Control Packet Indicator bit set to 1.
A summary of the Bridge Control Packet Indicator 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
10
Length
2
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
6. Changes From RFC 2878
This section enumerates changes made to the old RFC [14] to produce
this document.
(1) Add Bridge Control Packet Indicator to configuration option.
(2) Modify meaning of one of the reserved bits in the flags field.
7. Security Considerations
This network control protocol compares the configurations of two
devices and seeks to negotiate an acceptable subset of their
intersection, to enable correct interoperation even in the presence
of minor configuration or implementation differences. In the event
that a major misconfiguration is detected, the negotiation will not
complete successfully, resulting in the link coming down or not
coming up. It is possible that if a bridged link comes up with a
rogue peer, network information may be learned from forwarded
multicast traffic, or denial of service attacks may be created by
closing loops that should be detected and isolated or by offering
rogue load.
Such attacks are not isolated to this NCP; any PPP NCP is subject to
attack when connecting to a foreign or compromised device. However,
no situations arise which are not common to all NCPs; any NCP that
comes up with a rogue peer is subject to snooping and other attacks.
Therefore, it is recommended that links on which this may happen
should be configured to use PPP authentication during the LCP start-
up phase.
8. Intellectual Property 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 implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
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.
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
9. IANA Considerations
This document proposes one new BCP option number to be maintained by
the IANA. This option, described in Section 5.9, is Bridge-Control-
Packet-Indicator. The IANA has assigned the value 10 for this
option.
10. Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions
Working Group.
This document is based on the PPP Bridging Control Protocol, RFC 2878
[14], edited by Higashiyama and Baker and produced by the Point-to-
Point Protocol Extensions Working Group. It extends that document by
providing support for Bridge Control Packet Indicator as outlined in
section 3.5 and 5.9.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Appendices
A. Spanning Tree Bridge PDU (old format)
By default, Spanning Tree BPDUs MUST be encoded with a MAC or 802.2
LLC header as described in section 4.2 or 4.3 of this document.
However, should the remote entity Configure-Reject the Management-
Inline option, thereby indicating that it is a purely RFC 1638
compliant device, the local entity may subsequently encode BPDUs as
described in section 4.3 of RFC 1638 provided that use of a suitable
non-NULL STP protocol across the link is successfully negotiated
using the (old) Spanning-Tree-Protocol option.
This is the Spanning Tree BPDU used in RFC 1638, without any MAC or
802.2 LLC header (these being functionally equivalent to the Address,
Control, and PPP Protocol Fields). The LAN Pad and Frame Checksum
fields are likewise superfluous and absent.
The Address and Control Fields are subject to LCP Address-and-
Control-Field-Compression negotiation.
A PPP system which is configured to participate in a particular
spanning tree protocol and receives a BPDU of a different spanning
tree protocol SHOULD reject it with the LCP Protocol-Reject. A
system which is configured not to participate in any spanning tree
protocol MUST silently discard all BPDUs.
Spanning Tree Bridge PDU
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address and Control | Spanning Tree Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BPDU data ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame FCS | HDLC FLAG |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address and Control
As defined by the framing in use.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
Spanning Tree Protocol
Up-to-date values of the Spanning-Tree-Protocol field are
specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [4]. Current
values are assigned as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol
0201 IEEE 802.1 (either 802.1D or 802.1G)
0203 IBM Source Route Bridge
0205 DEC LANbridge 100
The two versions of the IEEE 802.1 spanning tree protocol frames
can be distinguished by fields within the BPDU data.
BPDU data
As defined by the specified Spanning Tree Protocol.
B. Tinygram-Compression Pseudo-Code
PPP Transmitter:
if (ZeroPadCompressionEnabled &&
BridgedProtocolHeaderFormat == IEEE8023 &&
PacketLength == Minimum8023PacketLength) {
/*
* Remove any continuous run of zero octets preceding,
* but not including, the LAN FCS, but not extending
* into the MAC header.
*/
Set (ZeroCompressionFlag); /* Signal receiver */
if (is_Set (LAN_FCS_Present)) {
FCS = TrailingOctets (PDU, 4); /* Store FCS */
RemoveTrailingOctets (PDU, 4); /* Remove FCS */
while (PacketLength > 14 && /* Stop at MAC header or */
TrailingOctet (PDU) == 0) /* last non-zero octet */
RemoveTrailingOctets (PDU, 1);/* Remove zero octet */
Appendbuf (PDU, 4, FCS); /* Restore FCS */
}
else {
while (PacketLength > 14 && /* Stop at MAC header */
TrailingOctet (PDU) == 0) /* or last zero octet */
RemoveTrailingOctets (PDU, 1);/* Remove zero octet */
}
}
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
PPP Receiver:
if (ZeroCompressionFlag) { /* Flag set in header? */
/* Restoring packet to minimum 802.3 length */
Clear (ZeroCompressionFlag);
if (is_Set (LAN_FCS_Present)) {
FCS = TrailingOctets (PDU, 4); /* Store FCS */
RemoveTrailingOctets (PDU, 4); /* Remove FCS */
Appendbuf (PDU, 60 - PacketLength, zeroes);/* Add zeroes */
Appendbuf (PDU, 4, FCS); /* Restore FCS */
}
else {
Appendbuf (PDU, 60 - PacketLength, zeroes);/* Add zeroes */
}
}
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
References
[1] IBM, "Token-Ring Network Architecture Reference", 3rd edition,
September 1989.
[2] IEEE 802.1, "Draft Standard 802.1G: Remote MAC Bridging",
P802.1G/D7, December 30, 1992.
[3] IEEE 802.1D-1993, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", ISO/IEC
15802-3:1993 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1993 edition., July 1993.
[4] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-
line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[5] Simpson, W., "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, January 1994.
[6] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
1661, July 1994.
[7] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti,
"The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996.
[8] IEEE 802.1D-1998, "Information technology - Telecommunications
and Information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks - Common Specifications - Part 3:
Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges: Revision. This is a revision
of ISO/IEC 10038: 1993, 802.1j-1992 and 802.6k-1992. It
incorporates P802.11c, P802.1p and P802.12e." ISO/IEC 15802-3:
1998.
[9] IEEE 802.1Q, ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.1Q, "IEEE Standards for
Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks", 1998.
[10] Baker, F. and R. Bowen, "PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)",
RFC 1638, June 1994.
[11] Bormann, C., "The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link PPP", RFC
2686, September 1999.
[12] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[13] K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker, D. Black, "Definition of the
"Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6
Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
[14] Higashiyama, M. and F. Baker, "PPP Bridging Control Protocol
(BCP)", RFC 2878, July 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Mitsuru Higashiyama
Anritsu Corporation
1800 Onna
Atsugi-shi
Kanagawa-prf.
243-8555 Japan
Phone: +81 (46) 296-6625
EMail: Mitsuru.Higashiyama@yy.anritsu.co.jp
Fred Baker
1121 Via Del Rey
Santa Barbara, California
93117 USA
Phone: (408) 526-4257
EMail: fred@cisco.com
Tawei Liao
cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 853-8905
EMail: tawei@cisco.com
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 3518 PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) April 2003
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.
Higashiyama, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
|
