





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]

