GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1638

Network Working Group F. Baker Request For Comments: 1638 ACC Category: Standards Track R. Bowen

                                                                   IBM
                                                               Editors
                                                             June 1994
                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.

Abstract

 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [6] provides a standard method for
 transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.  PPP
 defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family of
 Network Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different
 network-layer protocols.
 This document defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing
 and configuring Remote Bridging for PPP links.

Table of Contents

   1.     Historical Perspective ................................    2
   2.     Methods of Bridging ...................................    3
      2.1       Transparent Bridging ............................    3
      2.2       Remote Transparent Bridging .....................    3
      2.3       Source Routing ..................................    4
      2.4       Remote Source Route Bridging ....................    5
      2.5       SR-TB Translational Bridging ....................    6
   3.     Traffic Services ......................................    6
      3.1       LAN Frame Checksum Preservation .................    6
      3.2       Traffic having no LAN Frame Checksum ............    6
      3.3       Tinygram Compression ............................    7
      3.4       LAN Identification ..............................    7
   4.     A PPP Network Control Protocol for Bridging ...........    9
      4.1       Sending Bridge Frames ...........................   10
         4.1.1  Maximum Receive Unit Considerations .............   10
         4.1.2  Loopback and Link Quality Monitoring ............   11
         4.1.3  Message Sequence ................................   11

Baker & Bowen [Page 1] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

         4.1.4  Separation of Spanning Tree Domains .............   11
      4.2       Bridged LAN Traffic .............................   12
      4.3       Spanning Tree Bridge PDU ........................   16
   5.     BCP Configuration Options .............................   17
      5.1       Bridge-Identification ...........................   17
      5.2       Line-Identification .............................   19
      5.3       MAC-Support .....................................   20
      5.4       Tinygram-Compression ............................   21
      5.5       LAN-Identification ..............................   22
      5.6       MAC-Address .....................................   23
      5.7       Spanning-Tree-Protocol ..........................   24
      APPENDICES ................................................   26
      A.     Tinygram-Compression Pseudo-Code ...................   26
      SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................   27
      REFERENCES ................................................   27
   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................   28
   CHAIR'S ADDRESS ..............................................   28
   AUTHOR'S ADDRESS .............................................   28

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 [3].
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 2] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

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}
 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.  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.
 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.

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

Baker & Bowen [Page 3] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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
 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 and because the 802.1G proposal has not been approved
 as a standard, we discuss Remote Bridging in this document in terms
 of two Remote Bridges connected by a single line.  Within the 802.1G
 framework, these two bridges would comprise a Remote Bridge Group.
 This convention is not intended to preclude the use of PPP bridging
 in larger Groups, as allowed by 802.1G.

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 [3].
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 4] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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.
 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.

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

Baker & Bowen [Page 5] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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-
 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?".

Baker & Bowen [Page 6] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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.
 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 1 describes the algorithms.

3.4. LAN Identification

 In some applications, it is useful to tag traffic by the user
 community it is a part of, and guarantee that it will be only emitted
 onto a LAN which is of the same community.  The user community is
 defined by a LAN ID.  Systems which choose to not implement this
 feature must assume that any frame received having a LAN ID is from a
 different community than theirs, and discard it.
 It should be noted that the enabling of the LAN Identification option
 requires behavior consistent with the following additions to the
 standard bridging algorithm.

Baker & Bowen [Page 7] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 Each bridge port may be considered to have two additional variables
 associated with it: "domain" and "checkDomain".
 The variable "domain" (a 32-bit unsigned integer) is assigned a value
 that uniquely labels a set of bridge ports in an extended network,
 with a default value of 1, and the values of 0 and 0xffffffff being
 reserved.
 The variable "checkDomain" (a boolean) controls whether this value is
 used to filter output to a bridge port.  The variable "checkDomain"
 is generally set to the boolean value True for LAN bridge ports, and
 set to the boolean value False for WAN bridge ports.
 The action of the bridge is then as modified as expressed in the
 following C code fragments:
    On a packet being received from a bridge port:
    if (domainNotPresentWithPacket) {
        packetInformation.domain = portInformation[inputPort].domain;
    } else {
        packetInformation.domain = domainPresentWithPacket;
    }
    On a packet being transmitted from a bridge port:
    if (portInformation[outputPort].checkDomain &&
        portInformation[outputPort] != packetInformation.domain) {
        discardPacket();
        return;
    }
 For example, suppose you have the following configuration:
         E1     +--+            +--+     E3
    ------------|  |            |  |------------
                |  |     W1     |  |
                |B1|------------|B2|
         E2     |  |            |  |     E4
    ------------|  |            |  |------------
                +--+            +--+
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 8] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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|------------
                +--+            +--+
 To accomplish this (using the LAN Identification option), B1 and B2
 negotiate this option on, and send datagrams with bit 6 set to 1,
 with the LAN ID field inserted in the frame.  Traffic on E1 and E3
 would be assigned LAN ID 1, and traffic on E2 and E4 would be
 assigned LAN ID 2.  Thus B1 and B2 can separate traffic going over
 W1.
 Note that execution of the spanning tree algorithm may result in the
 subdivision of a domain.  The administrator of LAN domains must
 ensure, through spanning tree configuration and topology design, that
 such subdivision does not occur.

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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 9] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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.

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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 10] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

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.
 Work is currently in progress on a protocol to allow use of multiple
 PPP links [7].  If approved, this protocol will allow use of multiple
 links while maintaining message sequentiality for Bridged LAN Traffic
 and BPDU frames.

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,
 and MUST either silently discard or respond to other received BPDU
 packets with an LCP Protocol-Reject packet.

Baker & Bowen [Page 11] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

4.2. Bridged LAN Traffic

 For Bridging LAN traffic, the format of the frame on the line is
 shown below.  The fields are transmitted from left to right.
 802.3 Frame format
  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|I|Z|0| Pads  |    MAC Type   |  LAN ID high word (optional)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   LAN ID low word (optional)  |      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   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Baker & Bowen [Page 12] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 802.4/802.5/FDDI Frame format
  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|I|Z|0| Pads  |    MAC Type   |  LAN ID high word (optional)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   LAN ID low word (optional)  |   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 I:  Set if the LAN ID Field is present
    bit Z:  Set if IEEE 802.3 Pad must be zero filled to minimum size
    bit 0:  reserved, must be zero
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 13] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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.
 LAN ID
    This optional 32-bit field identifies the Community of LANs which
    may be interested to receive this frame.  If the LAN ID flag is
    not set, then this field is not present, and the PDU is four
    octets shorter.
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 14] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

    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.
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 15] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

4.3. Spanning Tree Bridge PDU

 This is the Spanning Tree BPDU, 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.
 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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 16] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 BPDU data
    As defined by the specified Spanning Tree Protocol.

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
       6       MAC-Address
       7       Spanning-Tree-Protocol

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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 17] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

    Since mismatched bridge numbers are indicative of a configuration
    error, it is strongly recommended that a system not change its
    bridge number for the purpose of resolving a mismatch.  However,
    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.
    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.

Baker & Bowen [Page 18] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

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.  This option MUST NOT be included in the same
    Configure-Request as the Bridge-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 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, it is strongly recommended that a system not
    change its LAN segment number for the purpose of resolving a
    mismatch.  However, 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.
    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

Baker & Bowen [Page 19] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Baker & Bowen [Page 20] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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

Baker & Bowen [Page 21] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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. LAN-Identification

 Description
    This Configuration Option permits the implementation to indicate
    support for the LAN Identification field, and that the system is
    prepared to service traffic to any labeled LANs beyond the system.
    A Configure-NAK MUST NOT be sent in response to a Configure-
    Request that includes this option.
    By default, LAN-Identification is disabled.  All Bridge LAN
    Traffic and BPDUs that contain the LAN ID field will be discarded.
    The peer may then reduce bandwidth usage by not sending the
    unsupported traffic.
 A summary of the LAN-Identification 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
    5
 Length
    3

Baker & Bowen [Page 22] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 Enable/Disable
    If the value is 1, LAN Identification is enabled.  If the value is
    2, LAN Identification is disabled.
    The implementations need not agree on the setting of this
    parameter.  One may be willing to accept LAN Identification and
    the other not.

5.6. 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.
 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   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Baker & Bowen [Page 23] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

 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.

5.7. Spanning-Tree-Protocol

 Description
    The Spanning-Tree-Protocol Configuration Option enables the
    Bridges to negotiate the version of the spanning tree protocol in
    which they will participate.
    If both bridges support a spanning tree protocol, they MUST agree
    on the protocol to be supported.  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 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

Baker & Bowen [Page 24] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

    MUST either silently discard or respond to other received BPDU
    packets with an LCP Protocol-Reject packet.
 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 4
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     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.
 Protocol n
    Each Protocol field is one octet and indicates a desired spanning
    tree protocol.  Up-to-date values of the Protocol field are
    specified 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

Baker & Bowen [Page 25] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

A. 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 */
      }
  }
  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 */
      }
  }

Baker & Bowen [Page 26] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

Security Considerations

 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

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 802.1, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", ISO/IEC 15802-
     3:1993 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1993 edition., July 1993.
 [4] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340,
     USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
 [5] Simpson, W., "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, Daydreamer, January
     1994.
 [6] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", RFC 1548,
     Daydreamer, December 1993.
 [7] Sklower, K., "A Multilink Protocol for Synchronizing the
     Transmission of Multi-protocol Datagrams", Work in Progress,
     August 1993.

Baker & Bowen [Page 27] RFC 1638 PPP Bridging June 1994

Acknowledgments

 This document is a product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions
 Working Group.
 Special thanks go to Steve Senum of Network Systems, Dino Farinacci
 of 3COM, Rick Szmauz of Digital Equipment Corporation, and Andrew
 Fuqua of IBM.

Chair's Address

 The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
 Fred Baker
 Advanced Computer Communications
 315 Bollay Drive
 Santa Barbara, California  93117
 EMail: fbaker@acc.com

Author's Address

 Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
 Rich Bowen
 International Business Machines Corporation
 P. O. Box 12195
 Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
 Phone: (919) 543-9851
 EMail: Rich_Bowen@vnet.ibm.com

Baker & Bowen [Page 28]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1638.txt · Last modified: 1994/06/08 21:24 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki