<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-templin-6man-parcels2-25"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Parcels and AJs">IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)</title>

    <author fullname="Fred L. Templin" initials="F. L." role="editor"
            surname="Templin">
      <organization>Boeing Research &amp; Technology</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>P.O. Box 3707</street>

          <city>Seattle</city>

          <region>WA</region>

          <code>98124</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>fltemplin@acm.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="20" month="May" year="2025"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>IPv6 packets contain a single unit of transport
      layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Transport layer protocols including the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      and reliable transport protocol users of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
      prepare data units known as segments which the network layer packages into
      individual IPv6 packets each containing a single segment. This specification
      presents new packet constructs termed IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)
      with different properties. Parcels permit a single packet to include
      multiple segments as a "packet-of-packets", while AJs offer essential
      operational advantages over basic jumbograms for transporting singleton
      segments of all sizes ranging from very small to very large. Parcels and
      AJs provide essential building blocks for improved performance, efficiency
      and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs)
      according to both the classic Internetworking link model and a new Delay
      Tolerant Networking (DTN) link model.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>IPv6 packets <xref target="RFC8200"/> contain a single unit of transport
      layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Transport layer protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      <xref target="RFC9293"/> and reliable transport protocol users of the
      User Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref target="RFC0768"/> (including QUIC
      <xref target="RFC9000"/>, LTP <xref target="RFC5326"/> and others)
      prepare data units known as segments which the network layer packages
      into individual IPv6 packets each containing only a single segment. This
      document presents a new construct termed the "IPv6 Parcel" which permits
      a single packet to include multiple segments. The parcel is essentially
      a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers appearing
      only once but with possibly multiple segments included. IPv6 parcels
      represent a network encapsulation for the multi-segment buffers managed
      by Generic Segment Offload (GSO) and Generic Receive Offload (GRO);
      these buffers are termed "parcel buffers" or simply "parcels" which
      may become "IP parcels" following encapsulation in {TCP,UDP}/IP.</t>

      <t>Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a
      buffer (or buffer chain) containing at most 64 consecutive transport
      layer protocol segments that lower layers can break out into individual
      packets as necessary. All non-final segments must be equal in length
      while the final segment must not be larger. The transport layer
      protocol entity then presents the parcel buffer, number of segments
      and non-final segment size to the network layer. The network layer next
      either performs packetization to forward each segment as an individual
      IPv6 packet or appends a single {TCP,UDP} header and a single IPv6 header
      plus extensions that identify this as an IP parcel. Any included {TCP,UDP}
      options are associated with all segments, therefore parcels may only
      include segments that employ compatible options.</t>

      <t>This document further introduces an "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" service
      that provides essential improvements over basic IPv6 jumbograms as
      defined in <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs provide a robust delivery
      service when transmission of singleton segments or parcels of all
      sizes ranging from very small to very large is necessary.</t>

      <t>The following sections discuss rationale for adopting parcels
      and AJs as core elements of the Internet architecture, as well as
      the actual protocol constructs and operational procedures involved.
      Parcels and AJs provide an essential data transit service for
      improved performance, efficiency and integrity while supporting
      larger Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs). A new Delay Tolerant
      Networking (DTN) link service model for parcels and AJs further
      supports delay/disruption tolerance especially well suited for
      air/land/sea/space mobility applications. These services should
      inspire future innovation in applications, transport protocols,
      operating systems, network equipment and data links for
      Internetworking performance maximization.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="terms" title="Terminology">
      <t>The Oxford Languages dictionary defines a "parcel" as "a thing or
      collection of things wrapped in paper in order to be carried or sent
      by mail". Indeed, there are many examples of parcel delivery services
      worldwide that provide an essential transit backbone for efficient
      business and consumer transactions.</t>

      <t>In this same spirit, an "IPv6 parcel" is simply a collection of
      at most 64 transport layer protocol segments wrapped in an efficient
      package with {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers appended for transmission and
      delivery as a "packet-of-packets". All non-final segments must be
      equal in length while the final segment must not be larger. IPv6
      parcels and AJs are distinguished from ordinary packets and
      jumbograms through the constructs specified in this document.</t>

      <t>The term "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" refers to a packaging variation
      modeled from the basic IPv6 jumbogram construct defined in
      <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs include either a single transport
      layer protocol segment the same as for basic IPv6 jumbograms or
      a multi-segment parcel. Unlike basic IPv6 jumbograms which are
      never smaller than 64KB, however, AJs can range in size from as
      small as the headers plus a minimal or even null payload to as
      large as 2**32 octets minus headers.</t>

      <t>The term "link" is defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> as:
      "a communication facility or medium over which nodes can communicate
      at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IPv6. Examples
      are Ethernets (simple or bridged); PPP links; X.25, Frame Relay, or
      ATM networks; and internet-layer or higher-layer "tunnels", such as
      tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself".</t>

      <t>Where the document refers to "IPv6 header length", it means
      only the length of the base IPv6 header (i.e., 40 octets), while
      the length of any extension headers is referred to separately as
      the "IPv6 extension header length". The term "IPv6 header plus
      extensions" refers generically to an IPv6 header plus all
      included extension headers.</t>

      <t>Where the document refers to "{TCP,UDP} header length", it means
      the length of either the TCP header plus options (20 or more octets)
      or UDP header plus options (8 or more octets). Most significantly,
      only a single IPv6 header and a single full {TCP,UDP} header plus
      options appears in each parcel regardless of the number of segments
      included. This distinction often provides a measurable overhead
      savings made possible only by parcels.</t>

      <t>Where the document refers to checksum calculations, it means the
      standard Internet checksum unless otherwise specified. The same as
      for TCP <xref target="RFC9293"/> and UDP <xref target="RFC0768"/>,
      the standard Internet checksum is defined as (sic) "the 16-bit one's
      complement of the one's complement sum of all (pseudo-)headers plus
      data, padded with zero octets at the end (if necessary) to make a
      multiple of two octets". A notional Internet checksum algorithm can
      be found in <xref target="RFC1071"/>.</t>

      <t>The term "Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)" is used consistently with
      its application in widely deployed Internetworking services. Parcels
      that employ end-to-end CRC checks use the CRC32C <xref target=
      "RFC3385"/> or CRC64E <xref target="ECMA-182"/> standards (see:
      <xref target="integrity"/>). AJs that employ end-to-end integrity
      checks include either a CRC or message digest calculated according
      to the MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref target="RFC3174"/>
      or US Secure Hash <xref target="RFC6234"/> algorithms.</t>

      <t>The terms "application layer (L5 and higher)", "transport layer
      (L4)", "network layer (L3)", "(data) link layer (L2)" and "physical
      layer (L1)" are used consistently with common Internetworking
      terminology, with the understanding that reliable delivery protocol
      users of UDP are considered as transport layer elements. The Overlay
      Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface specification <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> further introduces an "adaptation layer"
      logically positioned below the network layer but above the link layer
      (which may include physical links and Internet- or higher-layer tunnels).
      The adaptation layer is not associated with a layer number itself
      and is simply known as "the layer below L3 but above L2". A network
      interface is a node's attachment to a link (via L2), and an OMNI
      interface is therefore a node's attachment to an OMNI link (via
      the adaptation layer).</t>

      <t>The term "5-tuple" refers to a transport layer protocol entity
      identifier that includes the network layer (Source Address,
      Destination Address, Source Port, Destination Port, Protocol Number).
      The term "4-tuple" refers to  a network layer entity identifier
      that includes the adaptation layer (Source Address, Destination
      Address, Flow Label, Identification).</t>

      <t>The Internetworking term "Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)" is
      widely understood to mean the largest packet size that can transit
      a single link ("link MTU") or an entire path ("path MTU") without
      requiring network layer fragmentation.</t>

      <t>The terms "packetization" and "restoration" refer to a network
      layer process in which the original source breaks a parcel into
      individual IPv6 packets that can transit the remainder of the
      path without loss due to a size restriction. The final destination
      then restores the combined packet contents into a parcel (or
      multiple sub-parcels) before delivery to the transport layer.
      In standard practice, parcel packetization and restoration are
      functional equivalents of the well-known GSO/GRO services.</t> 

      <t>The terms "fragmentation" and "reassembly" follow exactly from
      their definitions in the IPv6 standard <xref target="RFC8200"/>,
      however a new Extended Fragment Header (EFH) service defined in
      <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2"/> may be used in place
      of the standard IPv6 Fragment Header for some applications. Note
      that AJs are ineligible for fragmentation unless they are first
      presented to an OMNI interface for adaptation layer encapsulation
      and are no larger than 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>"Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO)" <xref
      target="I-D.templin-6man-aero3"/> and the "Overlay Multilink Network
      (OMNI) Interface" <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> provide an
      adaptation layer framework for transmission of parcels/AJs over one or
      more concatenated Internetworks. AERO/OMNI will provide an operational
      environment for parcels/AJs beginning from the earliest deployment
      phases and extending indefinitely to accommodate continuous future
      growth. As more and more parcel/AJ-capable links are enabled (e.g.,
      in data centers, wireless edge networks, space-domain optical links,
      etc.) AERO/OMNI will continue to provide an essential service for
      Internetworking performance maximization.</t>

      <t>The terms "(original) source" and "(final) destination" refer
      to host systems that produce and consume IPv6 packets/parcels/AJs,
      respectively. The term "router" refers to a system that forwards
      IPv6 packets/parcels/AJs not addressed to itself while decrementing
      the Hop Limit. The terms "OAL source", "OAL intermediate system"
      and "OAL destination" refer to OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) nodes
      that (respectively) produce, forward and consume OAL-encapsulated
      IPv6 packets/parcels/AJs over an OMNI link.</t>

      <t>The terms "controlled environment" and "limited domain"
      follow directly from <xref target="RFC8799"/>. All nodes
      within a controlled environment / limited domain are expected
      to honor the protocol specifications found in this document,
      whereas nodes on open Internetworks may exhibit varying levels
      of conformance.</t>

      <t>When present, the "Parcel Integrity Block (PIB)" follows
      the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers of each parcel and includes
      integrity check fields for each parcel segment.</t>

      <t>The "Parcel Buffer (PB)" includes the concatenated upper
      layer protocol segments of the parcel. The PB follows the
      PIB when present; otherwise it follows the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      headers.</t>

      <t>The "Forward Error Correction (FEC)" services specified in
      this document conform to the IETF FEC architecture found in
      <xref target="RFC5052"/><xref target="RFC5445"/>. In this FEC
      architecture, a source node applies FEC encoding to an original
      IP packet/parcel/AJ and the corresponding destination(s) in
      turn apply FEC decoding to obtain the original data minus
      any corrected errors.</t>

      <t>The parcel sizing variables "J", "K", "L" and "M" are cited
      extensively throughout this document. "J" denotes the number of
      segments included in the parcel, "K" is the length of the final
      segment, "L" is the length of each non-final segment and "M" is
      termed the "Parcel Payload Length".</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="reqs" title="Requirements">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
      <xref target="RFC2119"/><xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

      <t>All IPv6 nodes MUST observe their respective requirements
      found in the normative references, including <xref target=
      "RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs are similar to the basic jumbogram
      specification found in <xref target="RFC2675"/>, but observe
      the specifications in this document. All IPv6 parcels include
      a single Parcel Payload Destination Option and all AJs include
      a single Parcel Payload HBH option; if more than one of either
      is included, the first is processed and the others are ignored.
      Only those parcels/AJs intended for paths that support the
      new link service model and/or larger sizes include the HBH
      Option.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs are not limited only to segment sizes
      that exceed 65535 octets; instead, parcels can be as small
      as the packet and parcel headers plus a small or even NULL
      singleton segment. Parcels that are no larger than 65535
      octets and set the IPv6 Payload Length to a non-zero value
      may be subject to source network layer fragmentation the
      same as for ordinary IPv6 packets.</t>

      <t>For further IPv6 HBH Option considerations, see: <xref
      target="RFC9673"/>. For IPv6 extension header limits, see:
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits"/>. For IPv4 parcel
      and advanced jumbo considerations, see: <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="aero-omni" title="Background and Motivation">
      <t>Studies have shown that applications can improve their performance by
      sending and receiving larger packets due to reduced numbers of system
      calls and interrupts as well as larger atomic data copies between kernel
      and user space. Larger packets also result in reduced numbers of network
      device interrupts and better network utilization (e.g., due to header
      overhead reduction) in comparison with smaller packets. However, the
      most prominent performance increases were observed by increasing the
      transport layer protocol segment size even if doing so invoked network
      layer fragmentation.</t>

      <t>A first study <xref target="QUIC"/> involved performance enhancement
      of the QUIC protocol <xref target="RFC9000"/> using the linux GSO/GRO
      facility. GSO/GRO provides a robust service that has shown significant
      performance increases based on a multi-segment transfer capability
      between the operating system kernel and the QUIC transport. GSO/GRO
      performs packetization and restoration with a transport protocol
      segment size limited by the path MTU (typically 1500 octets or
      smaller in current Internetworking practices).</t>

      <t>A second study <xref target="I-D.templin-dtn-ltpfrag"/> showed
      that GSO/GRO also improves performance for the Licklider Transmission
      Protocol (LTP) <xref target="RFC5326"/> used for the Delay Tolerant
      Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol <xref target="RFC9171"/> for segments
      larger than the actual path MTU through the use of IP fragmentation.
      Historically, the NFS protocol also saw significant performance
      increases using larger (single-segment) UDP datagrams even when IP
      fragmentation is invoked, and LTP still follows this profile today.
      Moreover, LTP shows this (single-segment) performance increase profile
      extending to the largest possible segment size which suggests that
      additional performance gains are possible using (multi-segment)
      parcels or AJs that approach or even exceed 65535 octets in
      total length.</t>

      <t>TCP also benefits from larger packet sizes and efforts have
      investigated TCP performance using jumbograms internally with changes
      to the linux GSO/GRO facilities <xref target="BIG-TCP"/>. The approach
      proposed to use the Jumbo Payload Option internally and to allow GSO/GRO
      to use buffer sizes that exceed 65535 octets, but with the understanding
      that links that support jumbograms natively are not yet widely deployed
      and/or enabled. Hence, parcels/AJs provide a packaging that can be
      considered in the near term under current deployment limitations.</t>

      <t>A limiting consideration for sending large packets is that they are
      often lost at links with MTU restrictions, and the resulting Packet Too
      Big (PTB) messages <xref target="RFC4443"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> may
      be lost somewhere in the return path to the original source. This path
      MTU "black hole" condition can negatively impact performance unless
      robust path probing techniques are used, however optimal performance
      always occurs when loss of packets due to size restrictions is minimized.</t>

      <t>These considerations therefore motivate a design where transport
      protocols can employ segment sizes as large as 65535 octets (minus
      headers) while parcels that carry multiple segments may themselves
      be significantly larger. (Transport layer protocols can also use AJs
      to transit even larger singleton segments.) Parcels allow the receiving
      transport layer protocol entity to process multiple segments in parallel
      instead of one at a time per existing practices. Parcels therefore support
      improvements in performance, integrity and efficiency for the original
      source, final destination and networked path as a whole. This is true
      even if the network or lower layers need to apply packetization/restoration
      and/or fragmentation/reassembly.</t>

      <t>An analogy: when a consumer orders 50 small items from a major online
      retailer, the retailer does not ship the order in 50 separate small
      boxes. Instead, the retailer packs as many of the small items as
      possible into one or a few larger boxes (i.e., parcels) then places
      the parcels on a semi-truck or airplane. The consumer will then
      find only one or a few parcels at their doorstep and not 50 separate
      small boxes. This flexible parcel delivery service greatly reduces
      shipping and handling cost for all including the retailer, regional
      distribution centers and finally the consumer.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="linksrv" title="A Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Link Model">
      <t>The classic Internetworking link service model <xref target="RFC3819"/>
      requires each link in the path to apply a link-layer integrity check
      often termed a "Frame Check Sequence (FCS)" over the entire length of
      the frame. The link near-end calculates and appends an FCS trailer to
      each packet pending transmission, and the link far-end verifies the
      FCS upon packet reception. If verification fails, the link far-end
      unconditionally discards the packet. This process is repeated for
      each link in the path so that only packets that pass all link-layer
      checks over their full lengths are delivered to the final destination.
      (Note that Internet- or higher-layer tunnels may traverse many underlying
      physical links that each apply their own FCS in series.)</t>

      <t>While the classic link model has contributed to the unparalleled
      success of terrestrial Internetworks (including the global public
      Internet), new uses in which significant delays or disruptions can
      occur are not as well supported. For example, a path that transits
      one or more links with higher bit error rates may be unable to pass
      an acceptable percentage of packets since loss due to link errors
      can occur at any hop. Moreover, packets that incur errors at an
      intermediate link but somehow pass the link integrity check will
      be forwarded by all remaining links in the path leaving only the
      final destination's integrity checks as a last resort. Especially
      with the advent of space-domain and wireless Internetworking in
      inhospitable environments where retransmissions may be onerous
      or even impractical, advanced end-to-end error detection and
      correction services not typically associated with ordinary
      packets are needed. This specification therefore introduces a
      new Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) link model, but still with
      principles of operation consistent with <xref target="RFC3819"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs that engage this DTN link model request a
      limited hop-by-hop integrity check that covers only the headers
      plus a leading portion of the payload. Each IPv6 parcel/AJ also
      includes per-segment end-to-end Cyclic Redundancy Checks (CRCs)
      or message digests plus Internet checksums to be verified
      by the final destination. For each parcel/AJ admitted under the
      DTN link model, the original source applies Forward Error Correction
      (FEC) encoding <xref target="RFC5052"/><xref target="RFC5445"/>
      if necessary. Each delay/disruption challenged link near-end in
      the path then applies its standard link-layer FCS for only the
      leading portion upon transmission according to the Integrity
      Limit specified by the source then writes the FCS as a trailer
      following the end of the parcel/AJ payload.</t>

      <t>The link far-end then verifies the FCS for the leading portion
      upon reception and discards the parcel/AJ if an error is detected.
      However, each link in the path passes parcels/AJs with valid headers
      through to the final destination even if the unchecked portion of
      the payload accumulates bit errors in transit. The final destination
      then invokes FEC decoding <xref target="RFC5052"/><xref target=
      "RFC5445"/> if necessary, verifies integrity using per segment
      end-to-end CRCs/Digests plus Internet checksums and delivers each
      segment to the local transport layer which may employ higher-layer
      integrity checks.</t>

      <t>The ubiquitous 1500 octet link MTU had its origins in the very
      earliest deployments of 10Mbps Ethernet technologies, however modern
      wired-line link data rates of 1Gbps are now typical for end user
      devices such as laptop computers while much higher rates of 10Gbps,
      100Gbps or even more commonly occur for data center servers. At these
      data rates, the serialization delays range from 1200usec at 10Mbps to
      only .12usec at 100Gbps <xref target="ETHERMTU"/> (still higher data
      rates are expected in the near future). This suggests that the legacy
      1500 MTU may be too small by multiple orders of magnitude for many
      well-connected data centers, wide-area wired-line networked paths
      or even for deep space communications over optical links. For such
      cases, larger parcels and AJs present performance maximization
      constructs that support larger transport layer segment sizes.</t>

      <t>While data centers, Internetworking backbones and deep space
      networks are often connected through robust fixed link services,
      the Internet edge is rapidly evolving into a much more mobile
      environment where 5G (and beyond) cellular services and WiFi
      radios connect a growing majority of end user systems. Although
      some wireless edge networks and mobile ad-hoc networks support
      considerable data rates, more typical rates with wireless signal
      disruption and link errors suggest that limiting channel contention
      by configuring more conservative MTU levels is often prudent. Even
      in such environments, a mixed link model with error-tolerant data
      sent in DTN parcels/AJs and error-intolerant data sent in classic
      packet/parcel/AJ constructs may present a more balanced profile.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs therefore provide a revolutionary
      advancement for delay/disruption tolerance in air/land/sea/space
      mobile Internetworking applications. As the Internet continues to
      evolve from its more stable fixed terrestrial network origins to
      one where more and more nodes are exposed to extreme conditions,
      this new link service model shifts bulk error detection and
      correction responsibilities to end systems that are uniquely
      qualified to take corrective actions. This is true even for
      paths where only one or a few links engage the new reduced
      coverage link integrity service model, while all other links
      can continue to employ the full frame checking services as
      they have always done.</t>

      <t>Note: IPv6 parcels and AJs may already be compatible with
      widely-deployed link types such as Gbps/Tbps Ethernet. Each
      Ethernet frame is identified by a preamble followed by a
      Start Frame Delimiter (SFD) followed by the frame data itself
      followed by the FCS and finally an Inter Packet Gap (IPG). Since
      no length field is included, however, the frame can theoretically
      extend as long as necessary for transmission of IPv6 parcels and
      AJs that are much larger than the typical 1500 octet Ethernet
      MTU as long as the time duration on the link media is properly
      bounded. Widely-deployed links may therefore already include
      all of the necessary features to natively support large parcels
      and AJs with no additional extensions, while operating systems
      may require extensions to post larger receive buffers.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="parcels" title="IPv6 Parcel Formation">
      <t>A transport protocol entity of the source identified by
      its 5-tuple forms a Parcel Buffer (PB) by concatenating "J"
      transport layer protocol segments (for J between 1 and 64)
      into a contiguous buffer or chain of smaller buffers. All
      non-final segments MUST be of equal length "L" while the
      final segment of length "K" MUST NOT be larger and MAY be
      smaller. The overall parcel length (including all segments
      and headers) is represented by the value "M".</t>

      <t>The source sets L to a 16-bit non-final segment length
      of at least 1 but no larger than 65535 octets minus the
      lengths of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) and IPv6
      header (plus extensions) (see: <xref target="borderline"/>).
      The transport layer protocol entity then presents the
      resulting PB and non-final segment length L to the network
      layer, noting that the combined PB length may exceed 65535
      octets when there are sufficient segments of a large enough
      size.</t>

      <t>If the path MTU is insufficient, the network layer of
      the source performs packetization to package each PB segment
      as an individual IPv6 packet as discussed in <xref target=
      "xmit-singleton"/>. Otherwise, the source optionally
      prepends a Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) before the PB that
      includes J N-octet CRCs followed by J 2-octet Internet
      Checksums. When present, the PIB appears as shown
      in <xref target="pcb"/>:

      <figure anchor="pcb"
              title="Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~           CRC (0) through CRC (J-1) (N octets each)           ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~     Checksum (0) through Checksum (J-1) (2 octets each)       ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then prepends a single full {TCP,UDP} header
      and a single full IPv6 header that includes a Parcel Payload
      Destination Option formatted as shown in <xref target=
      "parcel-dest"/>:

      <figure anchor="parcel-dest"
              title="IPv6 Parcel Payload Destination Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Segment Length (16 bits)   |F|I|   Nsegs   |P|U|  Reservd  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                 Identification (0/32/64 bits)                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>In this encoding, the source includes the Parcel Payload
      Option as an IPv6 Destination Option with Option Type "rest" set
      to '00010', "action" set to '11' and "change" set to '0' (i.e.,
      as Hex Value 0xC2). Note that this is the same Option Type as
      for the Jumbo Payload option specified in <xref target="RFC2675"/>
      but appearing as a Destination option and not a HBH option. All
      destinations must therefore consistently accept or discard
      packets with Destination option 0xC2 according to this
      specification.</t>

      <t>The source sets Opt Data Len to 4/8/12 based on the
      Identification length. Note that the source may include
      a full 64-bit Identification in initial parcels while
      including only the 32 least significant bits or omitting
      the Identification entirely in subsequent parcels when it
      has sent the full 64-bit value recently. The source then
      sets Segment Length to a 16-bit non-final segment length
      between 1 and 65535. The source also sets the F flag to 1
      if a Forward Error Correction (FEC) header follows (see:
      <xref target= "jumbo"/>), sets the I flag to 1 if a PIB is
      included and sets a 6-bit Nsegs field to the value (J-1).
      The source finally sets the P flag to 1 if a Probe Reply
      is requested (see: <xref target="probe"/> and sets the U
      flag to 1 if a trailing UDP option length field is included.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is present, the CRC length "N" is 4 octets
      for CRC32 when Segment Length is no larger than 9216 or 8
      octets for CRC64 when Segment Length is larger.</t>

      <t>The source then either includes or omits a Parcel
      Payload HBH Option as shown in <xref target="parcel-fmt"/>.
      <figure anchor="parcel-fmt" title="IPv6 Parcel Payload HBH Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Parcel Payload Length (32 bits)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Integrity Limit (16 bits)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>When the source includes a Parcel Payload HBH
      Option, it sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action"
      to '00' and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then
      sets Opt Data Len to 6. (Note: The destination plus all
      intermediate nodes must therefore consistently accept,
      ignore or discard packets with HBH option 0x02 according
      to this specification. Intermediate nodes MUST NOT regard
      the presence of the option as a reason to submit the
      packet for slow path processing.)</t>

      <t>The source then sets the IPv6 Payload Length field to
      0 and sets Parcel Payload Length to a 32-bit value M that
      encodes the length of the IPv6 extension headers plus the
      length of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options and option
      length field when present) plus the length of the PIB plus
      the combined lengths of all concatenated segments. This
      arrangement will cause any intermediate systems that do
      not recognize the option to discard or truncate the parcel
      to only the IPv6 header due to the IPv6 Payload Length
      of 0.</t>

      <t>Integrity Limit therefore determines the leading length
      of the parcel subject to link layer FCS protection at links
      that engage the new link service model while Parcel Payload
      Length determines the end of the parcel payload after which
      the link layer appends the trailing FCS itself. Integrity
      Limit therefore must be less than or equal to Parcel
      Payload Length.</t>

      <t>{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 parcels produced by the transport and
      network layers of the source therefore have the structures
      shown in <xref target="struct"/>:</t>
      <t><figure anchor="struct" title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Structure">
          <artwork><![CDATA[       TCP/IPv6 Parcel Structure          UDP/IPv6 Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~  IPv6 Hdr (plus extensions)  ~   ~  IPv6 Hdr (plus extensions)  ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~         More Segments        ~   ~         More Segments        ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
                                      ~     UDP Options / Length     ~
                                      +------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

    <section anchor="tcp-parcel" title="TCP Parcels">
      <t>A TCP Parcel is an IPv6 parcel that includes a TCP header
      plus options preceded by an IPv6 header plus extensions with
      a Parcel Payload Destination Option formed as specified in
      <xref target="parcels"/>. The TCP header is then followed
      by an optional PIB followed by the J consecutive PB segments.
      Each non-final segment is L octets in length and the final
      segment is K octets in length. The value L is encoded in
      the Segment Length field while the overall length of the
      parcel is determined by the payload length M.</t>

      <t>When the Parcel Payload HBH Option is absent, the source
      sets the IPv6 Payload Length the same as for an ordinary IPv6
      packet. When the HBH option is included, the source instead
      sets the IPv6 Payload Length to 0. The source then sets the
      Sequence Number field in the TCP header to identify the
      first sequence numbered octet of the first segment present;
      all additional segments present must then begin on successive
      sequence number offsets according to L. The destination and
      any intermediate systems can then determine the starting
      sequence number for each segment by examining the Segment
      Length and Index values with respect to the first segment.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is absent, the source then calculates the
      Internet checksum over the entire length of the parcel the
      same as for an ordinary TCP packet and writes the value in
      the TCP checksum field.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is present, the source instead calculates
      the Internet checksum only over the TCP/IP headers and
      writes the value into the TCP checksum field. The source
      then calculates the Internet checksum for each Segment(i)
      (for i between 0 and (J-1)) beginning with the Sequence
      number then writes the value into the PIB Checksum(i)
      field. The source then calculates a CRC32/64 beginning
      with Checksum(i) as a "pseudo-header" then extending
      over the length of Segment(i), then writes the value
      into the PIB CRC(i) field.</t>

      <t>See <xref target="extend"/> for additional TCP considerations. See
      <xref target="integrity"/> for additional integrity considerations.</t>

      <t>Note: The parcel TCP header Source Port, Destination Port
      and Sequence Number fields apply to each parcel segment
      (modulo Segment Length and Index), while the TCP control
      bits and all other fields apply only to the first segment
      (i.e., "Segment(0)"). Therefore, only parcel Segment(0)
      may be associated with control bit settings while all
      other segment(i)'s must be simple data segments.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="udp-parcel" title="UDP Parcels">
      <t>UDP/IPv6 parcels include a UDP header preceded
      by an IPv6 header plus extensions with a Parcel Payload
      Destination Option formed as shown in <xref target="parcel-dest"/>.
      The UDP header is followed by an optional PIB followed by a
      PB containing J transport layer segments followed by any UDP
      options followed by a trailing 2-octet length field when
      necessary (see below). Each PB segment must begin with a
      transport-specific start delimiter (e.g., a segment identifier,
      a sequence number, etc.) included by the transport layer user
      of UDP. The length of the first segment L is encoded in the
      Segment Length field while the overall length of the parcel
      is determined by the parcel payload length M as above.</t>

      <t>The source prepares UDP Parcels in an alternative adaptation of
      UDP jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/> . When the Parcel Payload
      HBH Option is absent, the source sets the IPv6 Payload Length
      normally. When a Parcel Payload HBH option is present, the source
      instead sets the IPv6 Payload Length to 0.</t>

      <t>The source then sets the UDP header Length field to the length
      of the UDP header plus the lengths of the PIB plus all PB segments.
      If this length exceeds 65535 octets, the source instead sets UDP
      Length to 0. When UDP options are present but their length cannot
      be determined by comparing the UDP Length and IPv6 Payload Length
      values, the source also sets the U flag and includes a 2-octet
      trailing "UDP Option Length" field that encodes the length of
      the UDP options which immediately precede it plus 2 octets for
      the length field itself.</t>

      <t>When UDP checksums are disabled, the source writes the value
      '0' in the checksum field. When UDP checksums are enabled and
      the PIB is absent, the source calculates the UDP checksum the
      same as for an ordinary UDP packet and writes the value into
      the UDP checksum field while rewriting calculated 0 values as
      '0xffff'. When the PIB is present, the source instead calculates
      the UDP checksum only over the UDP/IP headers and writes this
      value into the UDP checksum field with '0' written as '0xffff'.</t>

      <t>The source next populates the PIB by calculating the
      Internet checksum over the length of each Segment(i) and
      writes the value into the Checksum(i) field while rewriting
      calculated 0 values as '0xffff'. The source then calculates
      the CRC32/64 beginning with Checksum(i) and extending over
      the length of Segment(i), then writes the value into CRC(i).</t>

      <t>For the final segment, the source extends the CRC
      calculation beyond the length of the segment to also include
      the UDP options plus UDP Option Length field when either
      or both are present. (Note that the length of the UDP
      Option Length field itself is also included in the
      Parcel Payload Length.)</t>

      <t>See: <xref target="integrity"/> for additional integrity
      considerations.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="j-k-calc" title="Calculating K">
      <t>The parcel source unambiguously encodes the values J,
      L and M in parcel header fields as specified above. The
      value K is not encoded in a header and must therefore be
      calculated by nodes that process the parcel. A temporary
      value T is calculated as the payload length M minus the
      length of the IPv6 extension headers minus the length of
      the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options and option length when
      present) minus the length of the PIB. K is then calculated
      as the remainder of T divided by the Segment Length.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit" title="Transmission of IPv6 Parcels">
      <t>When the network layer of the source assembles a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      parcel it fully populates all IPv6 header fields including the source
      and destination addresses, then sets the Parcel Payload Destination
      Option fields as above with Segment Length L set to a value between
      1 and 65535. The source then sets Hop Limit the same as for an
      ordinary IPv6 packet.</t>

      <t>The source also maintains a randomly-initialized 4-octet
      (32-bit) Identification value for each destination. For each
      parcel or AJ transmission, the source sets the Identification
      to the current cached value for this destination and
      increments the cached value by 1 (modulo 2**32). (The source
      can then reset the cached value to a new random number when
      necessary, e.g., to maintain an unpredictable profile.) If
      the parcel/AJ includes a Parcel Payload HBH Option with an
      Identification field, the source writes the current
      Identification value into the HBH option field of the
      same name.</t>

      <t>The source also populates all {TCP,UDP} header and option
      fields, includes a populated PIB/PB then presents the parcel
      to an interface for transmission to the next hop the same
      as for an ordinary packet. If the new link model and/or
      an extended payload length field are required, the source
      instead first inserts a Parcel Payload HBH Option, sets
      the IPv6 Payload Length to 0 and forwards the parcel
      over the parcel-capable path.</t>

      <t>When the Parcel Payload HBH option Integrity Limit field
      is present, each delay/disruption challenged link in the path
      checks integrity of only that leading portion of the parcel/AJ
      even if the remainder of the payload contains accumulated link
      errors. This ensures that the majority of coherent data is
      delivered to the final destination instead of being discarded
      along with a minor amount of corrupted data at an intermediate
      hop while leaving integrity assurance for the remainder as an
      end-to-end service (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).</t>

      <t>When the path MTU is insufficient, the source applies
      packetization to break the parcel up into individual IPv6
      packets. The destination then applies restoration to
      submit the largest possible parcels to upper layers.
      These considerations are discussed in detail in the
      following sections.</t>

    <section anchor="xmit-singleton" title="Original Source Packetization">
      <t>For transmission of individual packets when the path MTU is
      too small to accommodate the entire parcel, the source invokes
      packetization the same as for GSO.</t>

      <t>To initiate packetization, the source first determines whether
      an individual packet with segment of length L can fit within the
      path MTU. If an individual packet would be too large the source
      drops the parcel and returns a Packet Too Big (PTB) message
      (subject to rate limiting).</t>

      <t>For each packet(i), the source then clears the TCP control bits
      in all but packet(0), and includes only those {TCP,UDP} options
      that are permitted to appear in data segments in all but packet(0)
      which may also include control segment options (see: <xref
      target="extend"/> for further discussion). The source then sets
      IPv6 Payload Length for each packet(i) based on the length of
      segment(i) according to <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>For each packet(i), the source then inserts a single Parcel
      Parameters Destination Option. The option is formatted as shown
      in <xref target="new-tcp"/>:</t>

        <t><figure anchor="new-tcp" title="Parcel Parameters Destination Option">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |R|M|   Index   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Identification (32/64 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action"
      to '00' and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then
      sets Opt Data Len to 5/9 based on the Identification length.
      The source includes Identification values corresponding to
      the original parcel then sets Index to 'i' and sets M to 1
      for non-final packet(i)'s or to 0 for the final packet(i).
      The source should include only a single Parcel Parameters
      Destination Option; if multiple are included, the destination
      processes the first and ignores any others. Note that the
      source can include a 64-bit Identification in initial packets
      then revert to including only the 32 least significant bits
      in additional packets, but the destination must honor the
      full 64-bit value when it applies restoration.</t>

      <t>For each IPv6 packet, the source then sets Hop Limit to the
      same value as for any IPv6 packet. For each TCP/IPv6 packet, the
      source next sets IPv6 Payload Length according to <xref target=
      "RFC8200"/> then calculates/sets the checksum for the packet
      according to <xref target="RFC9293"/>. For each UDP/IPv6 packet,
      the node instead sets the IPv6 Payload Length and UDP length
      fields then calculates/sets the checksum according to <xref
      target="RFC0768"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="final-reass" title="Final Destination Restoration">
      <t>When the original source opens a parcel and forwards its
      contents as individual IPv6 packets, these packets will arrive
      at the final destination which can hold them in a restoration
      buffer for a short time before restoring the original parcel
      the same as for GRO. The 5-tuple information plus the Parcel
      Parameters Option values included by the source during
      packetization (see: <xref target="new-tcp"/>) provide
      unambiguous context for GRO restoration which practical
      implementations have proven as a robust service at high
      data rates.</t>

      <t>The final destination concatenates segments according to
      ascending Index numbers to preserve segment ordering even
      if a small degree of reordering and/or loss may have occurred
      in the networked path. When the final destination performs
      restoration on TCP segments, it must include the one with
      any TCP flag bits set as the first concatenation and with
      the TCP options including the union of the TCP options of
      all concatenated packets. For both TCP and UDP, any packet
      containing the final segment must appear as a final
      concatenation. The final destination can then present the
      concatenated parcel contents to the transport layer with
      segments arranged in the same order in which they were
      originally transmitted.</t>

      <t>Note: Restoration buffer management is based on a hold
      timer during which singleton packets are retained until all
      members of the same original parcel have arrived.
      Implementations should maintain a short hold timer (e.g.,
      1 second) and advance any (partial) restorations to upper
      layers when the hold timer expires.</t>

      <t>Note: Restoration buffer congestion may indicate that the
      network layer cannot sustain the service(s) at current arrival
      rates. The network layer should then begin to deliver partial
      restorations or even individual segments to upper layers (e.g.,
      via the socket buffer) instead of waiting for all segments to
      arrive. The network layer can manage restoration/ buffers,
      e.g., by maintaining buffer occupancy high/low watermarks.</t>

      <t>Note: Some implementations may encounter difficulty in applying
      network layer restoration for packets that have already incurred
      lower layer reassembly. In that case, the network layer can either
      linearize each packet before applying restoration or deliver incomplete
      restorations or even individual segments to upper layers.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jumbo" title="Advanced Jumbos (AJ)">
      <t>This specification introduces an IPv6 Advanced Jumbo (AJ)
      service as a (single-segment) parcel alternative to basic
      jumbograms. Each AJ begins with a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header
      followed by the additional header encodings specified below.</t>

      <t>When the source forms a single-segment AJ, it includes a
      Parcel Payload HBH option and omits the Parcel Payload Destination
      option. The HBH option format is shown in <xref target="jumbo-probe"/>:

      <figure anchor="jumbo-probe"
              title="Parcel Payload HBH Option for Advanced Jumbos">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Parcel Payload Length (32 bits)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Integrity Limit (16 bits)   |F|I|   Digest  |P|U|  Reservd  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                  Identification (0/32/64 bits)                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source sets Option Type to Hex Value 0x02 then sets
      Opt Data Len to 8/12/16 according to the Identification length.
      The source sets the I, P and U flags the same as for the Parcel
      Payload Destination option (see: <xref target="parcel-dest"/>,
      then sets "Digest" to a supported CRC/Digest type (see: <xref
      target="adv-jumbo-digest"/>):

      <figure anchor="adv-jumbo-digest" title="Advanced Jumbo Integrity Algorithms">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Type    Algorithm      CRC/Digest Length
   ----    ---------      -----------------
   0       NULL           0 octets
   1       CRC32C         4 octets
   2       CRC64E         8 octets
   3       MD5            16 octets
   4       SHA1           20 octets
   5       SHA-224        28 octets
   6       SHA-256        32 octets
   7       SHA-384        48 octets
   8       SHA-512        64 octets
   9-63    Reserved
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then sets the F flag to 0 for "Non-FEC" or 1
      for "IANA FEC" (see below). If F is 1, the source includes
      an "IANA FEC Header" immediately following the {TCP,UDP}
      header (i.e., appearing before the PIB/PB) as shown in
      <xref target="fec-details"/>:

      <figure anchor="fec-details"
              title="IANA FEC Header">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  FEC Scheme   |      FEC Encoding Instance    | FEC Framework |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          FEC Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source sets FEC Scheme according to the appropriate
      registry values found in <xref target="IANA-FEC"/> and includes
      a 16-bit FEC Encoding Instance field (with value set according
      to <xref target="IANA-FEC"/>) only if FEC Scheme is larger than
      127. The source then sets FEC Framework according to <xref
      target="IANA-FEC"/> then sets FEC Length to the length of
      this FEC header (i.e., either 4 or 6 octets) plus the number
      of padding octets to be added by the FEC encoding operation.
      The source then increments the AJ payload length by this value.</t>

      <t>When I is 1, the source next includes an (N+2)-octet AJ PIB
      formatted as shown in <xref target="acb"/> with the first N
      octets including the CRC/Digest according to the appropriate
      length given in <xref target="adv-jumbo-digest"/> and the
      final 2 octets including the Internet Checksum:

      "<figure anchor="acb"
              title="AJ Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      CRC/Digest (N octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                       Checksum (2 octets)                     ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then sets Parcel Payload Length to the entire
      AJ payload length and sets Integrity Limit to the length
      of the leading portion of the AJ intended for coverage by
      hop-by-hop FCS integrity checks. The source next forms the
      {TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJ the same as for parcels as shown in <xref
      target="struct"/> except that the PIB is followed by only a
      single segment. Unlike parcels, the AJ PIB CRC/Digest field
      length may exceed 8 octets according to the selected Digest
      type. UDP AJs set the UDP Length field the same as specified
      for UDP parcels, and include a trailing UDP Option Length
      field if U is set to 1.</t>

      <t>The source then includes a CRC/Digest in the AJ PIB for CRC32,
      CRC64, MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref target="RFC3174"/>
      or the advanced US Secure Hash Algorithms <xref target="RFC6234"/>
      according the to AJ Digest field value. (An AJ Digest value is
      also reserved by IANA as a non-functional placeholder for a nominal
      CRC128J algorithm, which may be specified in future documents;
      see: <xref target="crc128j"/>.)</t>

      <t>The source next calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum based on
      the same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see: <xref
      target="pseudo"/>). When I=1, the source calculates the header
      checksum only and writes the value into the {TCP,UDP} header
      checksum field the same as specified for parcels. For all AJ
      Digest values other than 0, the source then calculates the
      checksum of the segment payload, writes the value into the
      segment Checksum header, then calculates the CRC/Digest over
      the length of the (single) segment beginning with the Checksum
      field and writes the value into the AJ PIB Digest field. The
      source then performs FEC encoding if necessary, resets the
      Payload Length to include the additional length introduced
      by the FEC algorithm, then sends the AJ via the next hop
      link toward the final destination.</t>

      <t>When the AJ arrives, the destination parses the IPv6 header
      and Parcel Payload Options then applies FEC decoding for the
      payload if necessary. The destination then rewrites the (Parcel)
      Payload Length to reflect the payload decrease due to FEC, then
      verifies the message CRC/Digest and Checksums. If all integrity
      checks agree, the destination delivers the AJ to upper layers.</t> 
    </section>

    <section anchor="probe" title="Parcel Probing">
      <t>The original source can send parcels or AJs without
      risk of causing harm or triggering alerts even with no
      prior coordination with intermediate systems or the final
      destination. Unless the source has operational assurance
      that all nodes in the networked path will correctly pass
      Parcel Payload HBH/Destination options, however, this
      approach may lead to systematic loss resulting in a
      black hole.</t>

      <t>The original source should therefore send initial parcel
      or AJ probes into the forward path according to the probing
      disciplines specified in <xref target="RFC4821"/> and <xref
      target="RFC8899"/>. The source should thereafter occasionally
      send additional probes to determine whether path characteristics
      have changed and/or to detect black hole conditions.</t>

      <t>The original source prepares a parcel/AJ with the P flag
      set in the Parcel Payload Destination or HBH option header
      and with a 32- or 64-bit Identification value. The parcel/AJ
      can be either a purpose-built probe or part of an existing
      transport protocol session, but it should cause the destination
      to return a responsive {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet with authenticating
      credentials and with a Parcel Probe Reply Destination Option
      (see below).</t>

      <t>When the destination receives the probe, it returns a
      responsive IPv6 packet that includes a Parcel Probe Reply
      Destination Option formatted as shown in <xref target=
      "parcel-mtu"/>.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="parcel-mtu" title="Parcel Probe Reply Destination Option">
      <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                  Identification (32/64 bits)                  ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>When the destination includes a Parcel Probe Reply Destination
      Option, it sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action" to '00'
      and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then sets Opt Data
      Len to 12/16 (based on the Identification length). The destination
      then sets Parcel Path MTU to the length of the probe and Identification
      to the value included in the probe. The destination then includes any
      additional identifying parameters (such as authentication codes) in
      the IPv6 packet and returns the packet to the source while discarding
      the probe. The destination should include only a single Parcel Probe
      Reply Destination Option; if multiple are included, the first is
      processed and all others ignored.</t>

      <t>The original source can therefore send parcel probes in the
      same packets used to carry real data. The probes will transit
      all routers on the forward path possibly extending all the way
      to the destination. If the source does not receive a probe reply,
      it is likely that the path or the final destination does not
      recognize and correctly pass Parcel options. If the source
      receives a probe reply, it authenticates the message and matches
      the Identification value with one of its previous probes. If
      a match is confirmed, then the Parcel Probe Reply Option will
      contain all information necessary for the source to use in
      its future parcel/AJ transmissions to this destination. </t>

      <t>All parcels/AJs also serve as implicit probes and may cause
      a router in the path to return an ordinary ICMPv6 error <xref
      target="RFC4443"/> and/or Packet Too Big (PTB) message <xref
      target="RFC8201"/> concerning the parcel if the path changes..</t>

     <t>After the initial path probing, any parcels/AJs for the flow
     can serve as additional probes to determine whether a path change
     resulting in a packet size-based black hole may have occurred.
     This allows for inline probing with real protocol data and
     with less dependence on transmission of explicit probe data.</t>

     <t>When the source includes a Parcel Probe in a HBH option, it
     can regard the receipt of an authentic Parcel Probe Reply as
     evidence that the probe transited the entire forward path to
     the destination and that the destination observes all aspects
     of this specification. If the source receives no probe reply,
     or if it only needs to determine whether the destination accepts
     parcels, the source can instead include the Parcel Probe as
     a Destination option.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jij" title="OMNI Interface Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
      <t>OMNI interfaces set an unlimited MTU and can process parcels
      and AJs as large as 65535 octets according to normal OMNI link
      encapsulation and fragmentation procedures. For parcels/AJs that
      exceed 65535 octets, the OMNI interface can instead insert OMNI
      and L2 encapsulations per <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>
      then perform "jumbo-in-jumbo" encapsulation as shown in <xref
      target="jij-struct"/>.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="jij-struct" title="Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
         Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~
   |                              |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~        L2 UDP header         ~
   |                              |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~      L2 Parcel Payload       ~   
   |         HBH Option           |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~       OMNI IPv6 Header       ~
   |        plus extensions       |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~          L3 IPv6 Hdr         ~
   |                              |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~      L3 Parcel Payload       ~
   |         HBH Option           |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |
   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~
   ~        parcel/AJ body        ~
   |                              |
   +------------------------------+
]]></artwork></figure></t>


      <t>When the OMNI link ingress receives a parcel/AJ larger than
      65535 octets, it leaves the L3 parcel/AJ headers intact then
      appends OMNI adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulations plus L2
      encapsulations that include a Parcel Payload HBH Option as an
      L2 extension. The OMNI link ingress sets the Parcel Payload
      Length field to the length of the L2 extension headers (including
      the L2 UDP header, if present) plus the lengths of the OMNI IPv6
      encapsulation header and the L3 packet (including all L3 headers).
      The OMNI link ingress sets all other OMNI and L2 encapsulation
      header fields as specified in <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>
      then forwards the parcel/AJ.</t>

      <t>If the encapsulated parcel/AJ arrives at the OAL destination,
      the OMNI interface performs decapsulation and forwards the parcel/AJ
      to next hop toward the final destination from where it may transit
      multiple additional OMNI and non-OMNI links. If the parcel/AJ
      traverses the entire path to the final destination, the
      destination will then return a probe reply to the source
      if necessary.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="integrity" title="Integrity">
      <t>IPv6 parcel/AJ integrity assurance responsibility is shared
      between lower layers of the protocol stack and the transport
      layer where more discrete compensations for lost or corrupted data
      recovery can be applied. In the classic link model, parcels and
      AJs are delivered to the final destination only if they pass the
      integrity checks of all links in the path over their entire length.
      In the DTN link model, any links in the path that employ the model
      may forward parcels/AJs with correct headers to the final destination
      transport layer even if the upper layer protocol data accumulates
      link errors. The destination is then ultimately responsible for
      its own end-to-end error correction and integrity assurance.</t>

      <t>Parcels/AJs should include a PIB when the path may not support
      adequate hop-by-hop integrity checks for larger-sized segments.
      For parcels/AJs that include a PIB, the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header
      includes an integrity check of only the headers while
      the PIB includes integrity checks for each segment. The
      per-segment Checksums/CRCs are set by the source and verified
      by the destination. Note that both checks are important (when
      no other integrity checks are present) since there may be
      instances when errors missed by the CRC are detected by the
      Checksum <xref target="STONE"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels can range in length from as small as only the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers plus a single segment to as large as
      the headers plus (64 * 65535) octets, while AJs include only
      a single segment that can be as small as a null segment to
      as large as 2**32 octets (minus headers). Due to
      parcellation/packetization in the path, the segment contents
      of a received parcel may arrive in an incomplete and/or
      rearranged order with respect to their original packaging.</t>
 
      <t>IPv6 parcels with I=1 include CRC32/64 integrity checks in
      the PIB. The original source uses either the CRC32C specification
      <xref target="RFC3385"/> or the CRC64E specification <xref target=
      "ECMA-182"/> to populate the PIB. AJs that set a Digest type
      other than NULL instead include an N-octet CRC/Digest calculated
      per <xref target="RFC1321"/>, <xref target="RFC3174"/> or <xref
      target="RFC6234"/> according to the hash algorithm assigned to
      Type.</t>

      <t>For links that observe the DTN link model, the link far end
      discards the parcel/AJ if it detects an FCS error in the leading
      portion to avoid the possibility of misdelivery and/or corrupted
      FEC/PIB fields. Otherwise, the link far end unconditionally
      forwards the parcel/AJ to the next hop even if the upper layer
      protocol data incurred link errors. Following any FEC repairs,
      the PIB integrity checks will ensure that good data is
      delivered to upper layers.</t>

      <t>To support the parcel/AJ header checksum calculation,
      the network layer uses a modified version of the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      pseudo-header found in Section 8.1 of <xref target="RFC8200"/> as
      shown in <xref target="pseudo"/>. This allows for maximum reuse
      of widely deployed code while ensuring interoperability.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="pseudo"
              title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header Formats">
        <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~               IPv6 Source Address (16 octets)                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~             IPv6 Destination Address (16 octets)              ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Parcel Payload Length (4 Octets)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Segment Length          |0|0|Nsegs/Digst|  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>where the following fields appear:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>Source Address is the 16-octet IPv6 source
          address of the prepared parcel/AJ.</t>

          <t>Destination Address is the 16-octet IPv6
          destination address of the prepared parcel/AJ.</t>

          <t>Parcel Payload Length is set to the 4-octet field of
          the same name when the Parcel Payload HBH Option is
          included; otherwise, set to the 2-octet IPv6 Payload
          Length.</t>

          <t>Segment Length, and Nsegs/Digest are the values that appear
          in the fields of the same name in the Parcel Payload Destination
          or HBH option header.</t>

          <t>Next Header is the IP protocol number corresponding to the
          transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP or UDP.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers
      a parcel body to the network layer, it presents the values L and
      J along with the J segments in canonical order as a list of
      data buffers. (For AJs, the transport layer instead delivers
      the singleton AJ segment along with the Parcel Payload Length.)
      When the network layer of the source accepts the parcel/AJ body
      from the transport layer protocol entity, it calculates the
      Internet checksum for each segment and writes the value into
      the correct PIB field (or writes the value 0 when UDP
      checksums are disabled).</t>

      <t>For parcels/AJs that include CRC/Digest integrity checks, the
      network layer then calculates the CRC/Digest for each segment
      beginning with the per-segment Checksum (followed by the Sequence
      number for TCP) and inserts the result in the correct PIB field.
      The network layer then concatenates all segments then appends
      the PIB plus all necessary {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers and extensions
      to form a parcel. The network layer next calculates the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header checksum over the length of only the
      {TCP,UDP} headers plus IPv6 pseudo header then forwards the
      parcel to the next hop without further processing.</t>

      <t>When the network layer of the destination accepts an AJ
      or parcel received from the source it first verifies the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header checksum then for each segment verifies
      the CRC/Digest (if present) followed by the Checksum (except
      when UDP checksums are disabled) and marks any segments with
      incorrect integrity check values as errors.</t>

      <t>When the network layer of the destination restores a parcel
      from one or more individual {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packets received from
      the source, it verifies the Internet checksum of each individual
      packet (except when UDP checksums are disabled), restores the
      parcel, and delivers each parcel/AJ segment to the transport
      layer.</t>

      <t>Note: Classical links often use CRC32 as their hop-by-hop
      integrity checking service and this specification assumes that
      future DTN-capable links will also use CRC32. Since the error
      detection resolution for CRC32 diminishes for frame sizes larger
      than ~9KB, implementations should select hop-by-hop integrity
      protection for only the leading portions of parcels/AJs while
      leaving the remaining payload for end-to-end integrity checks.
      Hop-by-hop integrity checks should at a minimum extend to
      cover the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers (plus options/extensions)
      plus the FEC preamble and PIB.</t>

      <t>Note: the source performs FEC encoding after calculating the
      PIB contents and the destination performs FEC decoding before
      verifying the PIB contents. This ensures that the source and
      destination will obtain identical copies of the original parcel
      provided any errors incurred in the path were corrected.</t>

      <t>Note: the source and destination network layers can often engage
      hardware functions to greatly improve CRC/Checksum calculation
      performance.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="implement" title="Implementation Status">
      <t>Common widely-deployed implementations include services such as TCP
      Segmentation Offload (TSO) and Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload
      (GSO/GRO). These services support a robust service that has been
      shown to improve performance in many instances.</t>

      <t>An early prototype of UDP/IPv4 parcels (draft version -15) has
      been implemented relative to the linux-5.10.67 kernel and ION-DTN
      ion-open-source-4.1.0 source distributions. Patch distribution
      found at: "https://github.com/fltemplin/ip-parcels.git".</t>

      <t>Performance analysis with a single-threaded receiver has shown that
      including increasing numbers of segments in a single parcel produces
      measurable performance gains over fewer numbers of segments due to more
      efficient packaging and reduced system calls/interrupts. For example,
      sending parcels with 30 2000-octet segments shows a 48% performance
      increase in comparison with ordinary packets with a single
      2000-octet segment.</t>

      <t>Since performance is strongly bounded by single-segment receiver
      processing time (with larger segments producing dramatic performance
      increases), it is expected that parcels with increasing numbers of
      segments will provide a performance multiplier on multi-threaded
      receivers in parallel processing environments.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>The IANA is instructed to add the following new entries to the
      "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters Registry group:

         <list style="empty">
          <t>- in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options"
          Registry (registration procedure IESG Approval, IETF Review
          or Standards Action) assign the following new entries:<figure
          anchor="parcel-payload-code" title="Destination Options and
          Hop-by-Hop Options"><artwork><![CDATA[   Hex Val  act chg rest    Description                Reference
   -------  --- --- -----   -----------                ---------
     0x02   00   0  00010   Parcel Payload HBH Option  [RFCXXXX]
     0x02   00   0  00010   Parcel Param/Reply DestOpt [RFCXXXX]
     0xC2   11   0  00010   Parcel Payload Dest Option [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
        </list>Note that the "rest" value is the same as for the
        existing Jumbo Payload option <xref target="RFC2675"/> but
        the act/chg and resulting Hex Values differentiate.</t>

      <t>The IANA is also instructed to create and maintain a new
      registry titled "IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)" that
      includes an "IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Digest Types" table with the
      initial values given below: <figure anchor="jumbo-type" title=
      "IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Digest Types">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Value        Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----        ----------                     ---------
   0            Advanced Jumbo / NULL          [RFCXXXX]
   1            Advanced Jumbo / CRC32C        [RFCXXXX]
   2            Advanced Jumbo / CRC64E        [RFCXXXX]
   3            Advanced Jumbo / MD5           [RFCXXXX]
   4            Advanced Jumbo / SHA1          [RFCXXXX]
   5            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-224       [RFCXXXX]
   6            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-256       [RFCXXXX]
   7            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-384       [RFCXXXX]
   8            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-512       [RFCXXXX]
   9            Advanced Jumbo / CRC128J       [RFCXXXX]
   10-15        Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>In the control plane, original sources match the Identification
      (and/or other identifying information) received in a Parcel Probe
      Reply with their earlier parcel/AJ transmissions. If the identifying
      information matches, the report is likely authentic. When stronger
      authentication is necessary, the Parcel Probe Reply can appear in
      the same packets that include transport layer security.</t>

      <t>In the data plane, multi-layer security solutions may be necessary
      to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability. According
      to <xref target="RFC8200"/>, a full IPv6 implementation includes
      the Authentication Header (AH) <xref target="RFC4302"/> and
      Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) <xref target="RFC4303"/>
      per the IPsec architecture <xref target="RFC4301"/> to support
      authentication, data integrity and (optional) data confidentiality.
      These AH/ESP services provide comprehensive integrity checking for
      parcel/AJ upper layer protocol headers and all upper layer protocol
      payload that follows. Since the network layer does not manipulate
      transport layer segments, parcels/AJs do not interfere with
      transport or higher-layer security services such as (D)TLS/SSL
      <xref target="RFC8446"/> which may provide greater flexibility
      in some environments.</t>

      <t>IPv4 fragment reassembly is considered dangerous at high data
      rates where undetected reassembly buffer corruptions can result
      from fragment misassociations <xref target="RFC4963"/>. IPv6 is
      less subject to these concerns when the 32-bit Identification field
      is managed responsibly. IPv6 Parcels and AJs that include the
      Parcel Payload HBH Option are not subject to fragmentation unless
      exposed to OMNI interface encapsulation which includes a 64-bit
      Identification space.</t>

      <t>For IPv6 parcels and AJs that engage the DTN link model, the
      destination end system is uniquely positioned to verify and/or
      correct the integrity of any transport layer segments received.
      For this reason, transport layer protocols that use parcels/AJs
      should include higher layer integrity checks and/or forward
      error correction codes in addition to the per-segment link
      error integrity checks.</t>

      <t>The CRC/Digest codes included with parcels/AJs that engage
      the DTN link model provide integrity checks only and must not
      be considered as authentication codes in the absence of additional
      security services. Further security considerations related to IPv6
      parcels and Advanced Jumbos are found in the AERO/OMNI specifications.</t>

      <t>The Parcel Payload Destination and HBH Options support
      end-to-end authentication since the option contents are not
      permitted to change en route. The Parcel Probe Destination
      and HBH options permit their contents to change en route
      excluding them from end-to-end authentication coverage.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations
      through Boeing Internal Research and Development (IRAD) supporting
      DTN operations for the International Space Station (ISS). Some of
      the concepts were further motivated through discussions with
      colleagues.</t>

      <t>A considerable body of work over recent years has produced useful
      segmentation offload facilities available in widely-deployed
      implementations.</t>

      <t>With the advent of networked storage, big data, streaming media
      and other high data rate uses the early days of Internetworking have
      evolved to accommodate the need for improved performance. The need
      fostered a concerted effort in the industry to pursue performance
      optimizations at all layers that continues in the modern era. All
      who supported and continue to support advances in Internetworking
      performance are acknowledged.</t>

      <t>This work has been presented at working group sessions of the
      Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The following IETF and
      Boeing colleagues are acknowledged for their contributions: Roland
      Bless, Ron Bonica, Scott Burleigh, Madhuri Madhava Badgandi, Brian
      Carpenter, David Dong, Joel Halpern, Mike Heard, Tom Herbert, Bob
      Hinden, Andy Malis, Bill Pohlchuck, Herbie Robinson, Bhargava Raman
      Sai Prakash, Joe Touch and others who have provided guidance.</t>

      <t>Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2675"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0768"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0791"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0792"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7323"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9293"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4443"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4291"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8200" ?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4301"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4302"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4303"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8446"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-aero3"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-omni3"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9000"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1071"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5326"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4821"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8201"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8899"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9171"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4963"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3385"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3174"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1321"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5052"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5445"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6234"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8799"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3819"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-dtn-ltpfrag"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9673"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits"?>

      <reference anchor="IANA-FEC">
        <front>
          <title>Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs,
          https://www.iana.org/assignments/rmt-fec-parameters</title>

          <author fullname="IANA FEC" initials="I"
                  surname="FEC">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2002"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="STONE">
        <front>
          <title>When the CRC and TCP Checksum Disagree, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication
          Review, Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2000, pp. 309-319, https://doi.org/10.1145/347057.347561</title>

          <author fullname="Jonathan Stone" initials="J." surname="Stone">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author fullname="Craig Partridge" initials="C." surname="Partridge">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2000"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="ECMA-182">
        <front>
          <title>European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) Standard ECMA-182,
          https://ecma-international.org/wp-content/uploads/ECMA-182_1st_edition_december_1992.pdf</title>

          <author fullname="ECMA General Assembly of 1992" initials="E."
                  surname="ECMA">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="1992"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="QUIC">
        <front>
          <title>Accelerating UDP packet transmission for QUIC,
          https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerating-udp-packet-transmission-for-quic/</title>

          <author fullname="Alessandro Ghedini" initials="A."
                  surname="Ghedini">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date day="8" month="January" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="BIG-TCP">
        <front>
          <title>BIG TCP, Netdev 0x15 Conference (virtual),
          https://netdevconf.info/0x15/session.html?BIG-TCP</title>

          <author fullname="Eric Dumazet" initials="E." surname="Dumazet">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date day="31" month="August" year="2021"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="ETHERMTU">
        <front>
          <title>Large MTUs and Internet Performance, 2012 IEEE 13th
          International Conference on High Performance Switching and
          Routing, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6260832</title>

          <author fullname="David Murray" initials="D." surname="Murray">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author fullname="Terry Koziniec" initials="T." surname="Koziniec">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author fullname="Kevin Lee" initials="K." surname="Lee">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author fullname="Michael Dixon" initials="M." surname="Dixon">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date day="24" month="June" year="2012"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <section anchor="extend" title="TCP Extensions for High Performance">
      <t>TCP Extensions for High Performance are specified in <xref
      target="RFC7323"/>, which updates earlier work that began in the
      late 1980's and early 1990's. These efforts determined that the
      TCP 16-bit Window was too small to sustain transmissions at high
      data rates, and a TCP Window Scale option allowing window sizes
      up to 2^30 was specified. The work also defined a Timestamp option
      used for round-trip time measurements and as a Protection Against
      Wrapped Sequences (PAWS) at high data rates. TCP users of IPv6
      parcels/AJs are strongly encouraged to adopt these mechanisms.</t>

      <t>Since TCP/IPv6 parcels only include control bits for the first
      segment ("segment(0)"), nodes must regard all other segments of the
      same parcel as data segments. When a node breaks a TCP/IPv6 parcel
      out into individual packets, only the first packet contains the
      original segment(0) and therefore only its TCP header retains the
      control bit settings from the original parcel TCP header. If the
      original TCP header included TCP options such as Maximum Segment
      Size (MSS), Window Scale (WS) and/or Timestamp, the node copies
      those same options into the options section of the new TCP header.</t>

      <t>For all other packets, the note sets all TCP header
      control bits to 0 as data segment(s). If the original parcel
      contained a Timestamp option, the node then copies the Timestamp
      option into the options section of the new TCP header. Appendix
      A of <xref target="RFC7323"/> provides implementation guidelines
      for the Timestamp option format.</t>

      <t>Appendix A of <xref target="RFC7323"/> also discusses Interactions
      with the TCP Urgent Pointer as follows: "if the Urgent Pointer
      points beyond the end of the TCP data in the current segment, then
      the user will remain in urgent mode until the next TCP segment arrives.
      That segment will update the Urgent Pointer to a new offset, and the
      user will never have left urgent mode". In the case of IPv6 parcels,
      however, it will often be the case that the next TCP segment is
      included in the same parcel as the segment that contained the
      urgent pointer such that the urgent pointer can be updated
      immediately.</t>

      <t>Finally, if a parcel/AJ contains more than 65535 octets of data
      (i.e., even if spread across multiple segments), then the Urgent
      Pointer can be regarded in the same manner as for jumbograms as
      described in Section 5.2 of <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="borderline" title="Extreme L Value Implications">
      <t>For each parcel, the transport layer can specify any L value
      between 1 and 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>The transport layer should also specify an L value no larger
      than can accommodate the maximum-sized transport and network layer
      headers that the source will include without causing a single
      segment plus headers to exceed 65535 octets. For example, if the
      source will include a 28 octet TCP header plus a 40 octet IPv6
      header with 24 extension header octets the transport should
      specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24) =
      65443 octets.</t>

      <t>The transport can specify still larger "extreme" L values up
      to 65535 octets, but the resulting parcels might be lost along
      some paths with unpredictable results. For example, a parcel
      with an extreme L value set as large as 65535 might be able to
      transit paths that can pass large parcels/AJs natively but might
      not be able to transit a path that includes conventional links.
      The transport layer should therefore carefully consider the
      benefits of constructing parcels with extreme L values larger
      than the recommended maximum due to high risk of loss compared
      with only minor potential performance benefits.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="crc128j" title="Advanced Jumbo Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC128J)">
      <t>This section postulates a 128-bit Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)
      algorithm for AJs termed "CRC128J". An Advanced Jumbo Type value is
      reserved for CRC128J, but at the time of this writing no algorithm
      exists. Future specifications may update this document and provide
      an algorithm for handling Advanced Jumbos with Type CRC128J.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="gsogro" title="GSO/GRO API">
      <t>Some modern operating systems include Generic Segment Offload (GSO)
      and Generic Receive Offload (GRO) services for use by Upper Layer
      Protocols (ULPs) that engage segmentation. For example, GSO/GRO support
      has been included in linux beginning with kernel version 4.18. Some
      network drivers and network hardware also support GSO/GRO at or below
      the operating system network device driver interface layer to provide
      benefits of delayed segmentation and/or early reassembly. The following
      sections discuss the linux GSO and GRO APIs.</t>

      <section anchor="LTP-GSO" title="GSO (i.e., Parcel Packetization)">
        <t>GSO allows ULP implementations to present the sendmsg() or
        sendmmsg() system calls with parcel buffers that include up to 64
        ULP segments, where each concatenated segment is distinguished by
        an ULP segment delimiter. The operating system kernel will in turn
        prepare each parcel buffer segment for transmission as an individual
        UDP/IP packet. ULPs enable GSO either on a per-socket basis using
        the "setsockopt()" system call or on a per-message basis for
        sendmsg()/sendmmsg() as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[  /* Set GSO segment size */
  unsigned integer gso_size = SEGSIZE;
  ...
  /* Enable GSO for all messages sent on the socket */
  setsockopt(fd, SOL_UDP, UDP_SEGMENT, &gso_size, sizeof(gso_size)));
  ...
  /* Alternatively, set per-message GSO control */
  cm = CMSG_FIRSTHDR(&msg);
  cm->cmsg_level = SOL_UDP;
  cm->cmsg_type = UDP_SEGMENT;
  cm->cmsg_len = CMSG_LEN(sizeof(uint16_t));
  *((uint16_t *) CMSG_DATA(cm)) = gso_size;]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>ULPs must set SEGSIZE to a value no larger than the path MTU
        via the underlying network interface, minus header overhead; this
        ensures that UDP/IP datagrams generated during GSO segmentation
        will not incur local IP fragmentation prior to transmission (Note:
        the linux kernel returns EINVAL if SEGSIZE encodes a value that
        exceeds the Path-MTU.)</t>

        <t>ULPs should therefore dynamically determine SEGSIZE for paths
        that traverse multiple links through Packetization Layer Path
        MTU Discovery for Datagram Transports <xref target="RFC8899"/>
        (DPMTUD). ULPs should set an initial SEGSIZE to either a known
        minimum MTU for the path or to the protocol-defined minimum path
        MTU. The ULP may then dynamically increase SEGSIZE without
        service interruption if the discovered Path-MTU is larger.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="LTP-GRO" title="GRO (i.e., Parcel Restoration)">
        <t>GRO allows the kernel to return parcel buffers that contain
        multiple concatenated received segments to the ULP in recvmsg()
        or recvmmsg() system calls, where each concatenated segment is
        distinguished by an ULP segment delimiter. ULPs enable GRO on
        a per-socket basis using the "setsockopt()" system call, then
        optionally set up per receive message ancillary data to receive
        the segment length for each message as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[  /* Enable GRO */
  unsigned integer use_gro = 1; /* boolean */
  setsockopt(fd, SOL_UDP, UDP_GRO, &use_gro, sizeof(use_gro)));
  ...
  /* Set per-message GRO control */
  cmsg->cmsg_len = CMSG_LEN(sizeof(int));
  *((int *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg)) = 0;
  cmsg->cmsg_level = SOL_UDP;
  cmsg->cmsg_type = UDP_GRO;
  ...
  /* Receive per-message GRO segment length */
  if ((segmentLength = *((int *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg))) <= 0)
       segmentLength = messageLength;
]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>ULPs include a pointer to a "use_gro" boolean indication
        to the kernel to enable GRO; the only interoperability requirement
        therefore is that each UDP/IP packet includes a parcel buffer with
        an integral number of properly-formed segments. The kernel and/or
        underlying network hardware will first coalesce multiple received
        segments into a larger single segment whenever possible and/or
        return multiple coalesced or singular segments to the ULP so as
        to maximize the amount of data returned in a single system call.</t>

        <t>ULPs that invoke recvmsg( ) and/or recvmmsg() will therefore
        receive parcel buffers that include one or more concatenated
        received ULP segments. The ULP accepts all received segments
        and identifies any segments that may be missing. The ULP then
        engages segment ACK/NACK procedures if necessary to request
        retransmission of any missing segments.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="legacy" title="Relation to Standard RFC2675 Jumbograms">
       <t>This specification uses a new Parcel Payload Destination
       Option along with a companion HBH Option of the same name
       instead of the <xref target="RFC2675"/> Jumbo Payload HBH
       Option.</t>

       <t>Standard <xref target="RFC2675"/> jumbograms are incompatible
       with UDP options, since they always set the IPv6 Payload Length
       field to 0 and do not otherwise encode a UDP options length.
       Standard jumbograms are further subject to myriad formatting
       rules that require intermediate systems to drop packets
       containing the option that do not fully observe all rules
       and return an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message.</t>

       <t>Standard jumbograms are also always 64KB or larger and
       rely on IPv6 Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) ICMPv6 Packet Too
       Big (PTB) messages to determine whether the end-to-end
       path supports jumbograms. But the ICMPv6 messages produced
       for Parameter Problem and PTB are often unreliable and/or
       untrustworthy in nature.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="changes" title="Change Log">
       <t>&lt;&lt; RFC Editor - remove prior to publication &gt;&gt;</t>
        <t>Changes from version -23 to -25:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Removed all requirements of handshaking with intermediate
          systems in support of RFC9268 and reverted to path probing
          by only the end systems themselves per RFC4821 and RFC8899.
          This means that intermediate systems are expected only to
          forward or not forward parcels/AJs with Parcel Payload
          options and are not required to engage in any other
          form of signaling. Parcels/AJs therefore become an
          end-to-end service with no intervention by intermediate
          systems.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -22 to -23:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Relocated full specifications of OMNI parcellation and
          reunification from OMNI into this document.</t>

          <t>Clarified inclusion of UDP Option Length field.</t>
        </list></t>

        <t>Changes from version -21 to -22:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Added note to clarify that adaptation layer parcel
          reunification is OPTIONAL allowing routers to immediately
          release sub-parcels rather than hold them in a reunification
          buffer.</t>

          <t>Rearranged header fields to avoid splitting multi-bit
          fields across byte boundaries; also placed single-bit
          fields as most-significant bits.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -20 to -21:<list style="symbols">
          <t>General clean-up.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -17 to -20:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Clarified the need for end-to-end integrity checking
          and forward error correction when retransmissions may
          be impractical.</t>

          <t>Clarified that the path MTU determines the maximum
          parcel/AJ segment size, which may be smaller than the
          maximum parcel which may contain multiple segments.</t>

          <t>Clarified that OMNI interfaces set an unlimited MTU
          and provide an assured service for segments up to
          65535 octets and a best-effort service for larger segments.</t>

          <t>TCP sequence numbers for each parcel segment are now
          calculated according to their offset from the base TCP
          header sequence number and are not explicitly included
          as ancillary header fields.</t>

         <t>Changed {TCP,UDP} options to IPv6 Destination Options
         and removed defunct text from IANA Considerations.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
