Accommodating a Maximum Transit Unit/Maximum Receive Unit (MTU/MRU) Greater Than 1492 in the Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE)
RFC 4638
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (September 2006; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mike Duckett , Jerome Moisand , Tom Anschutz , Diamantis Kourkouzelis , Peter Arberg | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4638 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Mark Townsley | ||
| Send notices to | james.d.carlson@sun.com | ||
Network Working Group P. Arberg
Request for Comments: 4638 D. Kourkouzelis
Category: Informational Redback Networks
M. Duckett
T. Anschutz
BellSouth
J. Moisand
Juniper Networks
September 2006
Accommodating a Maximum Transit Unit/Maximum Receive Unit (MTU/MRU)
Greater Than 1492 in the
Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE)
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
IESG Note
As of this writing, no current IEEE standard supports the use of
"jumbo frames" (MTU greater than 1500). Although this document
contains recommended mechanisms to detect problems in the path,
interoperability and reliability of non-standard extensions cannot be
assured. Both implementors and users of the protocol described here
should exercise caution in its use.
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE), as described in
RFC 2516, mandates a maximum negotiated Maximum Receive Unit (MRU) of
1492. This document outlines a solution that relaxes this
restriction and allows a maximum negotiated MRU greater than 1492 to
minimize fragmentation in next-generation broadband networks.
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................4
3. Proposed Solution ...............................................4
4. PPPoE Discovery Stage ...........................................5
5. LCP Considerations ..............................................5
5.1. MRU Negotiations ...........................................5
5.2. MRU Test and Troubleshooting ...............................6
6. Security Considerations .........................................7
7. IANA Considerations .............................................7
8. Acknowledgements ................................................7
9. Normative References ............................................7
10. Informative References .........................................8
1. Introduction
As broadband network designs are changing from PC-initiated PPPoE [1]
sessions in a combined Ethernet/Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
setup, as shown in Figure 1, to more intelligent PPPoE-capable
Residential Gateway (RG) and Gigabit Ethernet/ATM broadband network
designs, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, the need to increase the
maximum transmit and receive unit in the PPPoE protocol is becoming
more important in order to reduce fragmentation in the network.
<------------------ PPPoE session ------------------>
+-----+ +-----+
+--+ +---+ | | | |
|PC|--------------|CPE|-----------|DSLAM|-----------| BRAS|
+--+ <Ethernet> +---+ <ATM> | | <ATM> | |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 1. Initial broadband network designs with PPPoE
In the network design shown in Figure 1, fragmentation is typically
not a problem, since the subscriber session is PPPoE end to end from
the PC to the BRAS. Therefore, a PPP-negotiated MRU of 1492 octets
is fully acceptable, as it makes the largest PPPoE frame adhere to
the standard Ethernet MTU of 1500 octets.
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
<----- IPoE -----> <--------- PPPoE session --------->
+-----+ +-----+
+--+ +---+ | | | |
|PC|--------------| RG|-----------|DSLAM|------------| BRAS|
+--+ <Ethernet> +---+ <ATM> | | <GigE> | |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 2. Next-generation broadband network designs with PPPoE
In the network design shown in Figure 2, fragmentation becomes a
major problem, since the subscriber session is a combination of IPoE
and PPPoE. The IPoE typically uses a Maximum Transit Unit (MTU) of
1500 octets. However, when the Residential Gateway and the Broadband
Remote Access Server (BRAS) are the PPPoE session endpoints and
therefore negotiate an MTU/MRU of 1492 octets, the result is a large
number of fragmented packets in the network.
<----- IPoE -----> <---- PPPoA ----> <- PPPoE session ->
+-----+ +-----+
+--+ +---+ | | | |
|PC|--------------| RG|------------|DSLAM|------------| BRAS|
+--+ <Ethernet> +---+ <ATM> | | <GigE> | |
+-----+ +-----+
<-------------- PPPoA -------------> <- PPPoE session ->
+-----+ +-----+
+--+ +---+ | | | |
|PC|--------------|CPE|------------|DSLAM|------------| BRAS|
+--+ <ATM> +---+ <ATM> | | <GigE> | |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 3. Broadband network designs with PPPoA-to-PPPoE conversion
In the network design shown in Figure 3, which is studied by the
DSL-Forum in the context of the migration to Ethernet for broadband
aggregation networks, fragmentation is not the only problem when MRU
differences exist in Point-to-Point Protocol over AAL5 (PPPoA) and
PPPoE sessions.
The subscriber session is a PPP session running over a combination of
PPPoA and PPPoE. The PPP/PPPoA host typically negotiates a 1500-
octet MRU. Widely deployed PPP/PPPoA hosts in Customer Premises
Equipment (CPE) do not support a 1492-octet MRU, which creates an
issue in turn for the BRAS (PPPoE server) if strict compliance to RFC
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
2516 [1] is mandated. For PPP/PPPoA hosts capable of negotiating a
1492-octet MRU size, then we are back to a fragmentation issue.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode
PPP - Point-to-Point Protocol
PPPoA - PPP over AAL5
PPPoE - PPP over Ethernet
MTU - Maximum Transmit Unit
MRU - Maximum Receive Unit
PC - Personal Computer
CPE - Customer Premises Equipment
RG - Residential Gateway
BRAS - Broadband Remote Access Server
DSLAM - Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer
PPPoE - client PC, RG, or CPE that initiates a PPPoE session
PPPoE - server BRAS terminating PPPoE sessions initiated by client
PADI - PPPoE Active Discovery Initiation
PADO - PPPoE Active Discovery Offer
PADR - PPPoE Active Discovery Request
PADS - PPPoE Active Discovery Session-confirmation
3. Proposed Solution
The procedure described in this document does not strictly conform to
IEEE standards for Ethernet packet size but relies on a widely
deployed behavior of supporting frames with Ethernet packet format,
but exceeding the maximum packet lengths defined by [4].
Since next-generation broadband networks are built around Ethernet
systems supporting baby-giants and jumbo frames with payload sizes
larger than the normal Ethernet MTU of 1500 octets, a BRAS acting as
a PPPoE server MUST support PPPoE MRU negotiations larger than 1492
octets in order to limit the amount of fragmented packets in networks
similar to those described in Section 1.
By default, the Maximum-Receive-Unit (MRU) option MUST follow the
rules set forward in RFC 1661 [2] but MUST NOT be negotiated to a
size larger than 1492 to guarantee compatibility with Ethernet
network segments limited to 1500-octet frames. In such a case, as
the PPPoE header is 6 octets and the PPP Protocol ID is 2 octets, the
PPP MRU MUST NOT be greater than 1492.
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
An optional PPPoE tag, "PPP-Max-Payload", allows a PPPoE client to
override this default behavior by providing a maximum size for the
PPP payload it can support in both the sending and receiving
directions. When such a tag is received by the PPPoE server, the
server MAY allow the negotiation of an MRU larger than 1492 and the
use of an MTU larger than 1492, subject to limitations of its local
configuration and according to the rules set forward in RFC 1661 [2],
within the limits of the maximum payload size indicated by the PPPoE
client.
4. PPPoE Discovery Stage
If a PPPoE client wants to use an MTU/MRU higher than 1492 octets,
then it MUST include an optional PPP-Max-Payload Tag in the PADI and
PADR packets. If the PPPoE server can support an MTU/MRU higher than
1492 octets, it MUST respond with an echo of the clients tag in the
PADO and PADS packets when the PPP-Max-Payload tag is received from
the client.
Tag-name: PPP-Max-Payload
Tag-value: 0x0120
Tag-length: 2 octets
Tag-value: binary encoded value (max PPP payload in octets)
Tag-description:
This TAG indicates that the client and server are capable of
supporting a given maximum PPP payload greater than 1492 octets for
both the sending and receiving directions. Note that this value
represents the PPP payload; therefore it is directly comparable with
the value used in the PPP MRU negotiation.
5. LCP Considerations
5.1. MRU Negotiations
Since Ethernet (without jumbo frames) has a maximum payload size of
1500 octets, the PPPoE header is 6 octets, and the PPP Protocol ID is
2 octets, the Maximum-Receive-Unit (MRU) option MUST NOT be
negotiated to a size larger than 1492, unless both the PPPoE client
and server have indicated the ability to support a larger MRU in the
PPPoE Discovery Stage.
The initial MRU negotiation for the PPP/PPPoE server MUST follow a
flow as shown below:
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
If PPPoE {
PPP_MRU_Max = 1492
If (PPP-Max-Payload-Tag) AND (PPP-Max-Payload-Tag > 1492)
Then PPP_MRU_Max = min (PPP-Max-Payload-Tag, Interface MTU-8)
}
"Normal" PPP_MRU_Negotiation (PPP_MRU_Max)
If the PPP-Max-Payload tag is present and greater than 1492, it MUST
be considered along with the server's interface MTU settings when the
maximum value is selected for the normal RFC 1661 [2] MRU negotiation
which decides the actual MRU to use.
If the PPP-Max-Payload tag isn't present or is present but below
1492, then the existing MRU constraint of 1492 octets MUST stay
applicable, thus preserving backward compatibility.
This, in summary, indicates the following behavior:
1. When a "PPP-Max-Payload" tag is received,
a. the value in this tag will indicate the maximum MRU allowed to
be accepted or suggested in an MRU negotiation; and
b. if MRU is not negotiated, then RFC 1661 [2] will set the
default MRU at 1500. This will say that the "PPP-Max-Payload"
tag can have a value greater than 1500, but in this case RFC
1661 [2] sets the default MRU to 1500, and only if MRU is
negotiated higher (up to maximum payload) will the "PPP-Max-
Payload" tag value be used.
2. When a "PPP-Max-Payload" tag is not received by either end, then
RFC 2516 [1] sets the rule.
5.2. MRU Test and Troubleshooting
If the MRU is negotiated to a value larger than 1492 octets, the
sending side SHOULD have the option of sending one or more MRU-sized
Echo-Request packets once the session is opened. This allows it to
test that the receiving side and any intermediate Ethernet segments
and equipment can handle such a packet size.
If no Echo-Replies are received, the sending side MAY choose to
repeat the test with 1492 octets Echo-Request packets. If these
packets receive replies, the sending side MUST not send packets
bigger than 1492 octets for this session.
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
This capability SHOULD be enabled by default. It SHOULD be
configurable and MAY be disabled on networks where there is some
prior knowledge indicating that the test is not necessary.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original PPPoE protocol [1] remain
relevant.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new value in a space that currently has no
IANA registry. There is work in progress to define a registry [5]
and that document already contains the value assigned here. No IANA
action is required for this document.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prakash Jayaraman, Amit Cohen, Jim
Ellis, David Thorne, John Reid, Oliver Thorp, Wojciech Dec, Jim
Wilks, Mark Townsley, Bart Salaets, Tom Mistretta, Paul Howard, Dave
Bernard, and Darren Nobel for their contributions and comments to
this document.
9. Normative References
[1] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and
R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet
(PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
[2] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC
1661, July 1994.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, IEEE Std
802.3-2005, "IEEE Standard for Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical
Layer Specifications - Draft amendment to - Information
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific
requirements - Part 3: Carrier sense multiple access with
collision detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer
specifications - Media Access Control Parameters, Physical
Layers and Management Parameters", December 2005.
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
10. Informative References
[5] Arberg, P. and V. Mammoliti, "IANA Considerations for PPP over
Ethernet (PPPoE), Work in Progress, June 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Arberg
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: parberg@redback.com
Diamantis Kourkouzelis
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: diamondk@redback.com
Mike Duckett
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
575 Morosgo Drive
Atlanta, GA 30324
EMail: mike.duckett@bellsouth.com
Tom Anschutz
BellSouth Science and Technology
725 W. Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30308
EMail: tom.anschutz@bellsouth.com
Jerome Moisand
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
EMail: jmoisand@juniper.net
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4638 PPPoE MRU/MTU Increase September 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Arberg, et al. Informational [Page 9]