--------------------------------BEGIN---------------------------------- Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. 705 Westech Drive Norcross, Georgia 404/449-8791 8 June, 1988 =========================== OVERVIEW OF CCITT RECOMMENDATION V.42 =========================== HISTORY Work on the modem error control standard began with the appointment of the Special Rapporteur on error control at the 1984 Plenary Assembly of the CCITT (International Consultative Committee on Telegraphy and Telephony) in Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain. Meetings in the United States on the subject began in early 1985, and continue even now (and for the foreseeable future). EIA TR30 is an Accredited National Standards Committee operating under the authority of the American National Standards Institute. It develops voluntary standards for the United States, and proposes U.S. positions for consideration by Study Group D. There are three subcommittees under TR30: TR30.1 studies modems, TR30.2 the interface between DTEs and modems, and TR30.3 the interfaces between modems and the phone network. Because the CCITT is an agency of the United Nations (under the International Telecommunications Union [ITU]), its voting members are countries. Most countries are represented by their Postal, Telephone, and Telegraph Administration (PTT), but the United States does not have such a government agency. Instead, the U.S. CCITT National Committee, operating under the Department of State, formulates and approves U.S. positions in CCITT matters. It has five study groups, of which one, Study Group D, is in charge of positions related to modems (input to CCITT Study Group XVII) and data networks (input to CCITT Study Group VII). The CCITT is divided into fifteen groups by topic (some groups have been eliminated but the numbering has not been changed). Study Group XVIIs charter is to study Data Transmission over the Telephone Network). The recommendations (standards) developed by Study Group XVII are usually assigned numbers in the V series, such as the modem standards V.22, V.22bis, and V.32; ISDN terminal adaption standards V.110 and V.120; interface standards such as V.24; and error control standards such as V.42. The International Standards Organization (ISO) is made up of the national standards-making bodies from each country (in the USA, this is ANSI). In cooperation with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Joint Technical Committee 1 develops Information Processing standards. Subcommittee 6 develops standards related to Data Communications, in particular the bottom four layers of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference model (including the Physical and Data Link layers). There is close liaison and cooperation between SC 6 and Study Group XVII on many issues, including error control in modems. EXISTING STANDARDIZED ERROR-CONTROL PROTOCOLS SDLC is included as a standardized protocol for two reasons: if there is any such thing as a de facto standard, SDLC qualifies; and, SDLC is the foundation for nearly all subsequent development of data communications protocols. It pioneered such techniques as layered protocols and bit-oriented transmission with frame check sequences, zero-bit insertion for transparency, and flags. The international standard version of SDLC is not actually a protocol in itself, but a catalog or menu of elements and procedures from which appropriate choices can be made to build an actual protocol. It is made up of six major standards: ISO 3309 (basic framing), ISO 4335 (elements of procedure, or frame types), ISO 7809 (classes of procedures, or groupings for various applications), ISO 7478 (multilink procedures, for dividing a logical connection over several physical connections), ISO 8885 (general purpose parameter negotiation), and ISO 8471 (address resolution procedures for switched environments). X.25 is the primary protocol used to connect synchronous computers to packet networks. It includes both the LAP and LAPB data link layer protocols (LAPB, Link Access Procedure-Balanced, is a subset of HDLC), and the packet layer (implementing multiple virtual circuits). It was originally adopted in 1976, but has been enhanced in all subsequent CCITT study periods (1980, 1984, 1988) to meet the growing demands of users. Associated standards include X.75 (interconnection between packet networks) and ISO 7776 (standardization of DTE implementations of X.25). LAPB is the error control protocol used in the Hayes V-Series System Products. LAPD was developed in CCITT Study Group XI to serve as the protocol for the D signalling channel on ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) connections. It is an extended version of LAPB. E-PAD (Sweden) received very little consideration. It uses bisync-like framing (HDLC basic mode) and asynchronous transmission, and was designed as a higher-level interface between personal computers and X.3 PADs. Tymnet developed X.PC as an attempt to provide X.25-like functionality in asynchronous transmission environments. Unfortunately, because of vagaries of the Tymnet network internals and other design limitations, X.PC is actually far from an X.25 clone. Some early support for X.PC in the standards committees evaporated when performance differences were studied (X.PC, since it uses start-stop async transmission, has more than 20% additional overhead above X.25 LAPB and other bit-synchronous protocols). MNP (Microcom Networking Protocol) was the first attempt to integrate a protocol into a modem for point-to-point error control. The original MNP modems used async transmission, but later versions have grown to include synchronous transmission and other features. It is different from LAP protocols in many respects, including lack of provision of the OSI data link layer service, lack of piggybacked acknowledgements, no multiplexing, and combined acknowledgement and negative acknowledgement (and busy) frames. The greatest concern from modem vendors about using MNP has been Microcoms habit of releasing its own products with extended features much in advance of releasing specifications of those features to its licensees (who are also competitors). For example, Microcom has recently announced products incorporating classes 7, 8 and 9 of MNP, but has only released through class 6 to licensees. V.42 has been approved by Study Group XVII for forwarding to the CCITT Plenary Assembly which will be held November 14-25, 1988, in Melbourne, Australia. This is actually just a formality; there is little or no chance of technical change to the recommendation at the Plenary, and no political opposition is expected. STRUCTURE OF V.42 V.42 can be used with full-duplex two-wire dial-up modems on the switched telephone network that use asynchronous-to-synchronous conversion. Applicability to other modem types (half-duplex, for example) is for further study. The protocol defined in the main body of V.42 is known as LAPM Link Access Procedure for Modems. Its features are discussed below. Annex A of Recommendation V.42 specifies an alternative protocol which is claimed, by the parties submitting the specification, to be compatible with classes 2-4 of MNP (V.42 does not contain the term MNP). It has been included only for backward compatibility with a portion of the installed base of error-control modems. Backward compatibility features are added to standards for transition purposes, and are often deleted from recommendations after a reasonable transition period. They are segregated into annexes to simplify this process. V.42 specifies that a modem claiming full compliance to the standard must implement all parts of the standard, including both the primary and alternative protocols. Modems may implement a portion of the standard and claim compatibility only (which is a very subjective term). Many exciting features and capabilities are planned to be added to V.42, but all of these will aply to LAPM only, since it is the primary protocol. The alternative protocol is provided for compatibility with the installed base only, and none of that installed base will have any of the enhancements in their standardized form. Existing extensions to MNP are not standard, and never will be. V.42 specifies only the internal aspects and interface between modems, and some elements of the hardware DTE interface. It does not specify any AT-command-like control capability. This is the subject of work in progress in the USA (EIA TR30.2) and in the CCITT (Study Group XVII, Question 13.4). One of the few interface elements provided in V.42 is for flow control on the DTE interface, required during times when the modem is retransmitting data after an error occurs. V.24 circuit 133 (Ready for Receiving) is used by the DTE to control data flow from the modem, and will most likely be assigned as an alternative use of pin 4 (Request to Send) in the ISO 2110/EIA 232-D connector. The flow control function has been added as an integral capability of the Clear to Send signal. The XON and XOFF capability is bilateral (can be used by either the terminal or modem) and is similar to the CCITT X.3 usage. Selecting XON/XOFF protocol, however, means that binary data flow is not permitted because the user data may contain XON and XOFF characters which would be misinterpreted as flow control. All Hayes products will include the Transparent XON/XOFF capability (currently in the V-Series products) of encoding data so that such imbedded control codes do not interfere with the flow control processes. LAPM FEATURES A V.42 modem includes a capability such that the calling modem will send a sequence of control-Q (XON) characters with alternating parity (to limit the possibility of misinterpreting user keystrokes) to the answerer. Field testing has shown this benign detection phase not to cause interference (except in rare cases) with DTEs attached to non-error-controlling answering modems. The answering modem will respond with a sequence of characters (EC) which signals to the calling modem that the answerer has V.42 capability. The detection phase may be disabled in the originator, in which case the protocol establishment begins immediately upon connection of the call. This may be used in cases when the user is certain that the answering modem has V.42 capability. Answering V.42 modems must be able to handle incoming calls with the detection phaseenabled or disabled. LAPM is an extension of LAPB and LAPD. It uses basically the same connection establishment and termination procedures, as well as similar data transfer procedures. Implementors familiar with either of these protocols should have no difficulty with a LAPM implementation. The poll/final bit procedures allow one modem to force the other to transmit a response. This improves error recovery capabilities by bypassing timer expiration recovery mechanisms (MNP has no way to force the other modem to transmit). Providing separate frame types for ACK, NAK and Busy functions improves protocol reliabilty and eliminates the chance of lockups due to misinterpretation of frame contents (MNP uses a single frame type for ACK, NAK, and Busy functions). V.42 includes an enhanced Reject capability to improve error-recovery performance in the presence of line noise: a REJ frame may be sent upon receipt of any errored frame rather than waiting for subsequent receipt of a good frame. Modems receiving a REJ frame requesting a frame not yet sent simply ignore the frame. The address field allows for differentiation of commands and responses, and in the future will also allow for multiple simultaneous virtual data paths between the modems (for remote configuration, network management, or user data such as multiplexing multiple terminals or other devices). It also preserves compatibility with existing HDLC protocols and increases the likelihood of interworking with other HDLC-based devices in the future (MNP does not use an address field). Use of the address extension bit provides for multi-octet addresses. The large numbering base for information frames, provided by Modulo-128 I-Frame sequence numbers, permits a larger window size (number of outstanding frames) than would be permitted under modulo-8 sequence numbering. This improves performance on connections with long propagation delays, such as satellite links. The internationally standardized procedures using XID Frame exchange for negotiation defined in ISO 8885 and used in both X.32 and LAPD (Q.921) are also used in LAPM. Both standardized parameters (such as the options listed below) and manufacturer-specific enhancements can be negotiated through this mechanism. Enhancements provided by particular manufacturers such as data compression (in advance of standardization in this area) may be negotiated through a mechanism defined in V.42 which is under consideration for international standardization in ISO. It uses the same formatting conventions as used for negotiation of standard parameters and options, and allows manufacturers to use any character string as an identifier for their defined parameters. V.42 permits renegotiation of link parameters between the stations at any time during the connection. This may be useful if line or user data flow conditions change, and the modem (a particularly intelligent implementation, obviously) determines that different data link parameters would improve performance. This may occur, for example, if the default window size of 15 proves to be insufficient on a high-speed connection on a double satellite hop (which can be determined by repeatedly reaching the window limit before acknowledgements are received, forcing a wait). Unnumbered information (UI) frames are used for break signalling out-of-band with user data. Three types of breaks are supported: in-sequence breaks which do not flush outstanding data, expedited breaks that bypass user data, and destructive breaks that flush all user data buffers waiting for transmission (in both directions). In some environments the length of the break sent is important. For example, some systems use a short break (100 milliseconds or so) to interrupt data flow, while a long break (1.6 seconds or so) is a request for disconnection. LAPM preserves the break length (MNP does not) up to a maximum of 2540 milliseconds in 10 millisecond increments. In high-speed modems such as V.32, the scrambler used to ensure a constantly-changing data pattern on the phone line (to keep the modem clocks synchronized) uses an algorithm which has the effect of spreading single-bit errors over more than 16 bits. Research has shown that in some cases this scrambler algorithm interacts with the 16-bit frame check sequence algorithm to produce a 50% probability that some errors will be undetected by the frame check sequence. The V.42 32-bit frame check sequence option eliminates this possibility because the FCS algorithm encompasses more bits than the scrambler algorithm, detecting all propagation of errors by the scrambler. All V.42 modems must support 16-bit frame check sequence; 32-bit FCS is negotiated at connection time using XID frames and is enabled if possessed by both modems (MNP does not have this capability). When using high-speeds on long propagation delay channels, a large number of frames may be outstanding at any point in time. The standard error recovery method in LAP protocols requires that if a frame is received in error, it and all following frames must be retransmitted (MNP uses this technique as well). Selective Reject capability in V.42 allows only the frame(s) received in error to be requested for retransmission; following frames need not be retransmitted unless they were also received in error. Selective Reject is also negotiated via XID at link connection time, and may be used if enabled in both modems (the alternative protocol does not have this capability). V.42 modems may retransmit SREJ frames if it can be determined from incoming I-frames that the requested frame has been sent by the other modem but was once again errored. This improves performance on high-error-rate lines. It is sometimes desirable to run loopback tests to insure the integrity of the data communications link. Recommendation V.54 specifies physical (modulation) loopbacks that can be performed, and V.42 (in LAPM only, not MNP) provides for a loopback test of the error control functions as well. It uses the standard HDLC TEST frames, and may be enabled through XID negotiation. FUTURE PLANS FOR LAPM As has been previously noted, work is continuing at this time in the USA and internationally to standardize additional capabilities for V.42 modems. Some of these features are available in error-control modems today in non-standard form, but many are unique to V.42 and not provided as yet in any products. When these extensions are defined, they will be provided as optional capabilities to preserve compatibility with the installed base of V.42 modems, and will apply to the primary protocol (LAPM) only. Even if techniques used in existing MNP class 5 or greater modems were adopted entirely by the CCITT, these would not be added to the V.42 alternative protocol because it is frozen. The similarity between the V.42 LAPM protocol and the LAPD-like protocol used in the V.120 terminal adaption standard will permit the development of rules for interworking between these devices. This will allow devices on the ISDN to easily interwork with devices on the PSTN (Public Switch Telephone Network) without significant protocol conversion resources. Proper encoding of data at the ISDN terminal adapter may even eliminate the need for modem pools at the ISDNPSTN gateway. DATA COMPRESSION Certainly, data compression to improve throughput is one of the most important issues in error-control work at this time, and a standardized technique is likely to be approved through accellerated procedures early in the next CCITT study period. Hayes and others have already contributed documentation on existing techniques as a foundation for this future work. More contributions are expected. The result is likely to be an amalgamation of the best points of the existing techniques. DATA ENCRYPTION This capability is still at the level of feasibility study. There is some objection to doing this at the data link layer, with the preference being providing security functions at higher layers such as the presentation layer. Several issues, such as key management, have yet to be addressed, and it is likely to be some time before this work is significantly progressed. ASYMMETRICAL AND HALF-DUPLEX OPERATION Many existing error-control modems, such as the Hayes V-Series Smartmodem 9600, use half-duplex or asymmetrical transmission techniques to achieve high throughput at reduced cost. Most of these modems use proprietary techniques (Hayes alone uses an international standard protocol, LAPB, in its modem), and there is interest in defining a capability to support these transmission methods in V.42. Changes in the timers and acknowledgement rules may be necessary. The study group simply ran out of time or this would have been included in the 1988 version of V.42. MODEM RATE NEGOTIATION (MULTI-SPEED MODEMS) Although significant degradation of circuit quality during a single call is quite rare, there may be some benefit to be gained by the ability for the modems, based on error rates or other objective factors, to request a change to alternative (slower) modulation methods with improved performance (and to switch back if conditions improve). These rules could also be used to select among various transmission mechanisms at initial connection time if both modems have multiple capabilities. CHARACTER FORMAT INDICATION AND NEGOTIATION Some confusion currently exists in error-control connections due to the fact that the character format (parity, stop bits) is independently set on each DTE-modem interface, with an 8-bit format used between the modems. Rules are provided in V.42 for encoding of 5, 6, 7, and 8-bit data into protocol frames, but no method is provided to coordinate this setting between the two modems. This may result in unexpected or improperly formatted data being delivered in situations where different settings are used. Existing non-error-control modems have the same problem (they will fail to communicate if different character sizes are set), but intelligent error-control modems ought to be able to coordinate these settings and at least warn the user of possible problems. In some cases, however, it is desirable for the error-control modems to pass along data with improper parity rather than cleaning it up as done by current error-control modems. These include tandem modem links in which part of the connection has error-control modems and part does not. TRANSPORT OF INTERFACE STATE INFORMATION In addition to preserving user data, it is sometimes desirable to have end-to-end carriage of interface state information. This may occur, for example, if the remote device is a printer with a paper-out signal that needs to be received by the host. V.120 has this capability today, and a similar scheme could be added to V.42. FORWARD ERROR CORRECTION (CELLULAR RADIO) Cellular radio applications present monumental challenges to modem designers. Not only do drop-outs occur during cell transitions, but even normal traffic (the driving by of a large truck) can interfere with the signal and produce significant fading and other impairments. Error rates experienced can be as high as one bit in one hundred or worse, which would cause any normal error-control protocol to break down and not be able to transfer even a single frame (the human ear masks the resulting noise, but a modem cannot). Forward error correction, such as used in Compact Discs, could be applied to V.42 modems. Throughput performance might be halved, but half is better than nothing. STATISTICAL MULTIPLEXING (MULTIPORT) As mentioned above in the address field discussion, the capability exists in V.42 for multiple simultaneous virtual circuits between the modems. This is often used in high-speed modems today to provide for connection of multiple terminals or a terminal and a printer at a remote site. It is desirable to be able to provide this capability in an error-control modem as well. NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND REMOTE CONFIGURATION In large networks, there is a great need to receive status reporting and diagnostic information from widely-dispersed equipment, particularly at unmanned sites, and also to be able to set parameters and run tests on these remote modems. Standards in the entire area of OSI network management are under study in ISO and CCITT, and error control modems are no exception. The multiple virtual circuit capability of V.42 is an excellent way to perform out-of-band management without interfering with user data flow. The goal in JTC 1/SC 21 and CCITT SG XVII Q. 9 is to accomodate heterogeneous multi-vendor environments, interfacing with existing management systems such as NetView. MULTI-FRAME SELECTIVE REJECT As described above, selective reject allows for retransmission of only errored frames rather than all following frames. If several frames are in error, a separate SREJ frame must be sent for each one. In asymmetrical modems especially, in which the acknowledgement channel may be running at only 1/48th the speed of the data channel, these SREJ frames may take a long time to send, increasing the likelihood of reaching the transmitter's window size and delaying transmissions unnecessarily. A multi-frame selective reject capability will allow several individual frames to be requested in one SREJ frame, thereby reducing substantially the overhead on asymmetrical links. HAYES SUPPORT OF V.42 Hayes believes strongly that V.42 is the error-control technique of the future, consistent with existing standardized techniques and independent of proprietary control. The achievement of the goal of a standardized error-control technique will eliminate fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace, greatly increasing the demand for error-control capability. Being an international standard, homologation of the same product into many countries should be greatly simplified, and error-controll communication between countries facilitated. Until techniques are standardized in CCITT for such features as data compression, proprietary techniques will be supported in V.42 via the manufacturers option negotiation XID procedures. Any V.42-based product obtained from Hayes will be able to interwork with the installed base of Hayes V-Series modems which will be upgraded to V.42 support. New versions of Smartcom II and Smartcom III will be provided which include parameter selections to control the V.42-related enhancements to Hayes products. These programs would thus be immediately usable with any Hayes V.42 modem. Hayes has always had a strong commitment to standards, and will continue to actively participate in the work on V.42 and other data communications standards. This ensures that the interests of our customers are taken into account in the standards-making process, and also allows Hayes to respond quickly to include agreed enhancements in our products. Our experience in developing the V-Series System Products, which use the international standard LAPB protocol, will allow us to very quickly implement the similar LAPM protocol and provide these capabilities both as upgrades to existing products and in new products. ---------------------------------END----------------------------------