<?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-intarea-parcels-28"
     ipr="trust200902" updates="RFC2675">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IP Parcels">IP Parcels</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="23" month="January" year="2023"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>IP packets (both IPv4 and IPv6) contain a single unit of upper layer
      protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Upper layer protocols including the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      and transports over the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) prepare data units
      known as "segments", with traditional arrangements including a single
      segment per IP packet. This document presents a new construct known as
      the "IP Parcel" which permits a single packet to carry multiple upper
      layer protocol segments, essentially creating a "packet-of-packets". IP
      parcels provide an essential building block for improved performance,
      efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission
      Units (MTUs) in the Internet.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>IP packets (both IPv4 <xref target="RFC0791"/> and IPv6 <xref
      target="RFC8200"/>) contain a single unit of upper layer protocol data
      which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss. Upper layer
      protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) <xref
      target="RFC9293"/> and transports over 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", with traditional arrangements including a single segment per
      IP packet. This document presents a new construct known as the "IP
      Parcel" which permits a single packet to carry multiple upper layer
      protocol segments. This essentially creates a "packet-of-packets" with
      the IP layer and full {TCP,UDP} headers appearing only once but with
      possibly more than one segment included.</t>

      <t>Parcels are formed when an upper layer protocol entity identified by
      the "5-tuple" (source address, destination address, source port,
      destination port, protocol number) prepares a data buffer beginning with
      an Integrity Block of up to 256 2-octet Checksums followed by their
      corresponding upper layer protocol segments that can be broken out
      into smaller sub-parcels and/or individual packets if necessary. All
      segments except the final one must be equal in length and no larger
      than 65535 octets (minus headers), while the final segment must not
      be larger than the others but may be smaller. The upper layer protocol
      entity then delivers the buffer, number of segments and non-final
      segment size to lower layers which append a {TCP,UDP} header and
      an IP header plus extensions that identify this as a parcel and
      not an ordinary packet.</t>

      <t>Parcels can be forwarded over consecutive parcel-capable links in
      a path until arriving at a router where the next hop is via a link
      that does not support parcels, a parcel-capable link with a size
      restriction, or an ingress middlebox Overlay Multilink Network
      (OMNI) Interface <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/> that
      spans intermediate Internetworks using adaptation layer encapsulation
      and fragmentation. In the first case, the router transforms the parcel
      into individual IP packets and forwards them via the next hop link.
      In the second case, the router breaks the parcel into smaller
      sub-parcels and forwards them via the next hop link. In the final
      case, the OMNI interface breaks the parcel into smaller sub-parcels
      if necessary then applies adaptation layer encapsulation and
      fragmentation if necessary.</t>

      <t>These OMNI interface sub-parcels may then be recombined into one
      or more larger parcels by an egress middlebox OMNI interface which
      either delivers them locally or forwards them over additional
      parcel-capable links on the path to the final destination. The
      final destination can then further re-combine sub-parcels of the
      same original parcel so as to present the largest possible data
      unit to upper layers. Reordering and even loss or damage of
      individual segments within the network is therefore possible, but
      what matters is that the number of parcels delivered to the final
      destination should be kept to a minimum for best performance and
      that loss or receipt of individual segments (and not parcel size)
      determines the retransmission unit.</t>

      <t>The following sections discuss rationale for creating and shipping
      IP parcels as well as the actual protocol constructs and procedures
      involved. IP parcels provide an essential building block for improved
      performance, efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum
      Transmission Units (MTUs) in the Internet. It is further expected that
      the parcel concept will drive future innovation in applications,
      operating systems, network equipment and data links.</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 "IP parcel" is simply a collection of up to
      256 upper layer protocol segments wrapped in an efficient package for
      transmission and delivery (i.e., a "packet-of-packets") while a
      "singleton IP parcel" is simply a parcel that contains a single segment.
      IP parcels are distinguished from ordinary packets through the special
      header constructions discussed in this document.</t>

      <t>The IP parcel construct is defined for both IPv4 and IPv6. Where the
      document refers to "IPv4 header length", it means the total length of
      the base IPv4 header plus all included options, i.e., as determined by
      consulting the Internet Header Length (IHL) field. Where the document
      refers to "IPv6 header length", however, 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".
      Finally, the term "IP header plus extensions" refers generically to an
      IPv4 header plus all included options or 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 the UDP header (8 octets). It is important to note that only a
      single IP header and a single full upper layer header appears in each
      parcel regardless of the number of segments included. This distinction
      often provides a significant savings in overhead made possible only
      by IP 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"/>, UDP <xref target="RFC0768"/> and IPv4
      <xref target="RFC0791"/>, 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"/>, while
      practical implementations require special attention to byte ordering
      "endianness" to ensure interoperability between diverse architectures.</t>

      <t>The Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO) <xref
      target="I-D.templin-intarea-aero"/> and Overlay Multilink Network
      Interface (OMNI) <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/> technologies
      provide an ideal architectural framework for transmission of IP parcels.
      AERO/OMNI are expected to provide an operational environment for IP
      parcels beginning from the earliest deployment phases and extending to
      accommodate continuous growth. As more and more parcel-capable links
      begin to emerge, e.g., in data centers, edge networks, space-domain
      links, etc., AERO/OMNI will provide a transit backbone for true IP
      parcel Internetworking.</t>

      <t>The term "parcel-capable link" refers to any data link medium
      (physical or virtual) capable of transiting a {TCP,UDP}/IP packet
      that employs the parcel-specific constructions specified in this
      document. The link MUST be capable of forwarding all parcels
      with segment lengths no larger than the minimum of the link Maximum
      Transmission Unit (MTU) and 65535, while first applying parcel
      subdivision if necessary (see: <xref target="xmit"/>). Currently,
      only the OMNI link satisfies these properties, but new and
      existing link types are encouraged to incorporate parcel
      support in their designs.</t>

      <t>The term "Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)" is widely understood
      in Internetworking terminology to mean the largest packet size that
      can traverse a single link ("link MTU") or an entire path ("path MTU")
      without requiring IP layer fragmentation. If the MTU value returned
      during parcel path qualification is larger than 65535, it determines
      only the maximum parcel size that a router can forward over a
      restricting link without performing subdivision; otherwise, it
      determines both the maximum parcel size and maximum size for a
      single parcel segment (see: <xref target="probe"/>).</t>

      <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>
    </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.</t>

      <t>A first study <xref target="QUIC"/> involved performance enhancement
      of the QUIC protocol <xref target="RFC9000"/> using the linux Generic
      Segment/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO) facility. GSO/GRO provides a robust
      (but non-standard) service similar in nature to the IP parcel
      service described here, and its application has shown significant
      performance increases due to the increased transfer unit size between
      the operating system kernel and QUIC applications. Unlike IP parcels,
      however, GSO/GRO perform fragmentation and reassembly at the transport
      layer with the transport protocol segment size limited by the path MTU
      (typically 1500 octets or smaller in today's Internet).</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 OMNI interface
      encapsulation and 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) IP parcels that approach or even exceed
      65535 octets.</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 idea is to
      use the jumbo payload option internally and to allow GSO/GRO to use
      buffer sizes larger than 65535 octets, but with the understanding that
      links that support jumbos natively are not yet widely available. Hence,
      IP parcels provides 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 smaller MTUs, and the resulting Packet Too Big
      (PTB) message may be lost somewhere in the path back to the original
      source. This "Path MTU black hole" condition can degrade performance
      unless robust path probing techniques are used, however the best case
      performance always occurs when no packets are lost due to size
      restrictions.</t>

      <t>These considerations therefore motivate a design where transport
      protocols should employ a maximum segment size no larger than 65535
      octets (minus headers), while parcels that carry multiple segments may
      themselves be significantly larger. Then, even if the network needs to
      sub-divide the parcels into smaller sub-parcels to forward further
      toward the final destination, an important performance optimization for
      the original source, final destination and network path as a whole can
      be realized. This performance advantage is accompanied by an overall
      improvement in integrity and efficiency.</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 parcels may then pass through
      one or more regional distribution centers where they may be repackaged
      into different parcel configurations and forwarded further until they
      are finally delivered to the consumer. But most often, the consumer will
      only find 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="parcels" title="IP Parcel Formation">
      <t>An upper layer protocol entity (identified by the 5-tuple as
      above) forms an IP parcel when it prepares a data buffer containing the
      concatenation of an Integrity Block of up to 256 2-octet Checksums
      followed by their corresponding upper layer protocol segments (with each
      TCP non-first segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence Number). All non-final
      segments MUST be equal in length while the final segment MUST NOT be
      larger and MAY be smaller. Each non-final segment MUST NOT be larger
      than the minimum of 65535 octets and the path MTU, minus the length of
      the {TCP,UDP} header, minus the length of the IP header (plus
      options/extensions), minus 2 octets for the per-segment Checksum.
      (Note that this also satisfies the case of ingress middlebox OMNI
      interfaces in the path that would process the headers as upper layer
      protocol payload during IPv6 encapsulation/fragmentation.)</t>

      <t>The upper layer protocol entity then presents the buffer and
      non-final segment size L to lower layers (noting that the buffer may be
      larger than 65535 octets if it includes sufficient segments of a large
      enough size to exceed that value). If the buffer plus headers would
      together be no larger than the first hop link MTU or path MTU, the
      lower layer then appends a single full {TCP,UDP} header (plus
      options) followed by a single IP header (plus options/extensions).
      If the buffer would cause a single parcel to exceed the link/path
      MTU, the lower layer instead breaks the buffer up into multiple smaller
      buffers (each with an integral number of segments) and appends separate
      {TCP,UDP}/IP headers for each as separate parcels. (Note: if the first
      hop link MTU is larger than the path MTU, the lower layer can either
      limit the size of the parcels it sends to the path MTU or send parcels
      as large as the link MTU with the understanding that a router in the
      path may need to subdivide it into smaller parcels.)</t>

      <t>The IP layer then presents each parcel to a network interface attachment
      to either an ordinary parcel-capable link or an OMNI link that performs
      adaptation layer encapsulation and fragmentation (see: <xref target="xmit"/>).
      The IP layer includes a special coding of the Jumbo Payload option in the
      IP header formed as shown in <xref target="jumbo-fmt"/>:<figure anchor="jumbo-fmt"
              title="Jumbo Payload Option Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |S|    Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-                    Identification                   -+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
        </figure>For IPv4, the Jumbo Payload option format follows from <xref
      target="RFC2675"/> except that the IP layer sets option type to
      '00001011' and option length to '00010000' noting that the length
      distinguishes this type from its obsoleted use as the "IPv4 Probe MTU"
      option <xref target="RFC1063"/>. The IP layer then sets the
      "(S)ub-parcel" flag to '0', sets Code to 127, sets Check to the
      same value that will appear in the TTL of the outgoing IPv4 header
      and sets Identification to a random 64-bit number for this parcel.
      The IP layer also interprets the most significant option data octet
      as an Nsegs field that encodes a value J between 0 and 255 and sets
      the Jumbo Payload Length field to a 3-octet value M that encodes the
      length of the IPv4 header plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header
      plus the combined length of the Integrity Block plus all concatenated
      segments. The IP layer next sets the IPv4 header DF bit to 1 and Total
      Length field to the non-final segment size L. Note that the IP layer
      can form true IPv4 jumbograms (as opposed to parcels) by instead
      setting the IPv4 header Total Length field to 0 and treating the
      entire 4 octets of (Nsegs/Jumbo Payload Length) as a 32-bit length
      field (see: <xref target="jumbo-fmt"/>).</t>

      <t>For IPv6, the IP layer includes a Jumbo Payload option in an IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop Options extension header formatted the same as for IPv4
      above, but with option type set to '11001110' and option length set to
      '00001110'. The IP layer then sets the "(S)ub-parcel" flag to '0',
      sets Code to 127, sets Check to the same value that will appear
      in the Hop Limit of the outgoing IPv6 header and sets Identification
      to a random 64-bit number for this parcel. The IP layer then sets the
      option data Nsegs field to a 1-octet value J between 0 and 255 and
      sets the Jumbo Payload Length field to a 3-octet value M that encodes
      the lengths of all IPv6 extension headers present plus the length of
      the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of the Integrity Block
      plus all concatenated segments. The IP layer next sets the IPv6 header
      Payload Length field to L. Note that the IP layer can form true IPv6
      jumbograms (as opposed to parcels) by instead setting the IPv6 header
      Payload Length field to 0 and treating the entire 4 octets of
      (Nsegs/Jumbo Payload Length) as a 32-bit length field
      (see: <xref target="jumbo-fmt"/>).</t>

      <t>The IP layer then prepares the rest of the {TCP,UDP}/IP parcel
      according to the formats shown in <xref target="struct"/>:</t>

      <t><figure anchor="struct"
              title="{TCP,UDP}/IP Parcel Structure">
          <artwork><![CDATA[        TCP/IP Parcel Structure            UDP/IP Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |IP Hdr plus options/extensions|   |IP Hdr plus options/extensions|
   ~ {Total, Payload} Length = L  ~   ~ {Total, Payload} Length = L  ~
   | Nsegs = J; Jumbo Length = M  |   | Nsegs = J; Jumbo Length = M  |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   | (Includes Sequence Number 0) |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       Integrity Block        ~   ~       Integrity Block        ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~                              ~   ~                              ~
   ~    Segment 0 (L-4 octets)    ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number 1 followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment 1 (L octets)   ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number 2 followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment 2 (L octets)   ~   ~     Segment 2 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number J followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment J (K octets)   ~   ~     Segment J (K octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure>where the total number of segments is (J + 1), L
      is the length of each non-final segment which MUST NOT be larger than
      65535 octets (minus headers) and K is the length of the final segment
      which MUST NOT be larger than L. (Note that when J is 0, K and L
      are one and the same value.)</t>

      <t>The {TCP,UDP} header is then immediately followed by an Integrity
      Block containing (J + 1) 2-octet Checksums concatenated in numerical
      order as shown in <xref target="int-blk"/>:
      <figure anchor="int-blk" title="Integrity Block Format">
      <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Checksum (0)          |         Checksum (1)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Checksum (2)          |            ...                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            ...                ~
   ~            ...                             ...                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Checksum (J-1)         |         Checksum (J)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
      </figure>The Integrity Block is then followed by (J + 1) upper layer
      protocol segments. For TCP, the TCP header Sequence Number field
      encodes a 4-octet starting sequence number for the first segment
      only, while each additional segment is preceded by its own 4-octet
      Sequence Number field. For this reason, the length of the first
      segment is only (L-4) octets since the 4-octet TCP header
      Sequence Number field applies to that segment. (All non-first
      TCP segments instead begin with their own Sequence Numbers,
      with the 4-octet length included in L and K.)</t>

      <t>Following parcel construction, the Nsegs value unambiguously
      determines the number of 2-octet Checksums present in the Integrity
      Block and (together with the Jumbo Payload Length) also determines
      the number of parcel data segments present. Receivers therefore
      observe the following:<list
          style="symbols">
          <t>if the Jumbo Payload Length indicates insufficient space for
          the full Integrity Block plus at least one data segment octet,
          the receiver discards the parcel.</t>

          <t>if the length of the payload following the Integrity Block
          is (J * L) or less, the receiver processes all initial
          Checksums along with their corresponding segments up to the
          end of the payload and ignores any remaining Checksums.</t>

          <t>if the length of the payload following the Integrity Block is
          greater than ((J + 1)  * L) the receiver processes all Checksums
          with their corresponding segments and ignores any remaining
          payload beyond the end of the final segment.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Note: per-segment Checksums appear in a contiguous Integrity Block
      immediately following the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers instead of inline with
      the parcel segments to greatly increase the probability that they will
      appear in the contiguous head of a kernel receive buffer even if the
      parcel was subject to OMNI interface IPv6 fragmentation. This condition
      may not always hold if the IPv6 fragments also incur IPv4 encapsulation
      and fragmentation over paths that traverse slow IPv4 links with small
      MTUs. In that case, performance is bounded by the unavoidable slow link
      traversal and not the overhead for pulling a fragmented Integrity
      Block into the contiguous head of a kernel receive buffer.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="tcp-parcel" title="TCP Parcels">
      <t>A TCP Parcel is an IP Parcel that includes an IP header plus
      extensions with a Jumbo Payload option formed as shown in
      <xref target="jumbo-fmt"/> with Nsegs/J encoding one
      less than the number of segments and Jumbo Payload length encoding
      a value up to 16,777,215 (2**24 - 1). The IP header plus extensions
      is then followed by a TCP header plus options (20 or more octets),
      which is then followed by an Integrity Block with (J + 1) consecutive
      2-octet Checksums. The Integrity Block is then followed by (J + 1)
      consecutive segments, where the first segment is (L-4) octets in length
      and uses the 4-octet sequence number found in the TCP header, each
      intermediate segment is L octets in length (including its own 4-octet
      Sequence Number segment header) and the final segment is K octets in
      length (including its own 4-octet Sequence Number segment header).
      The value L is encoded in the IP header {Total, Payload} Length field
      while J is encoded in the Nsegs octet. The overall length of the
      parcel as well as final segment length K are determined by the
      Jumbo Payload length M as discussed above.</t>

      <t>The source prepares TCP Parcels in a similar fashion as for TCP
      jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/>. The source calculates a checksum
      of the TCP header plus IP pseudo-header only (see: <xref target="integrity"/>),
      but with the TCP header Sequence Number field temporarily set to 0
      during the calculation since the true sequence number will be included
      as a pseudo header for the first segment. The source then writes the
      calculated value in the TCP header Checksum field as-is (i.e., without
      converting calculated '0' values to 'ffff') and finally re-writes the
      actual sequence number back into the Sequence Number field. (Nodes
      that verify the header checksum first perform the same operation of
      temporarily setting the Sequence Number field to 0 and then resetting
      to the actual value following checksum verification.)</t>

      <t>The source then calculates the checksum of the first segment
      beginning with the sequence number found in the full TCP header as a
      4-octet pseudo-header then extending over the remaining (L-4) octet
      length of the segment. The source next calculates the checksum for
      each L octet intermediate segment independently over the length of
      the segment (beginning with its sequence number), then finally
      calculates the checksum of the K octet final segment (beginning
      with its sequence number). As the source calculates each per-segment
      checksum for segment(i) (for i = 0 thru J), it writes the value into
      the corresponding Integrity Block Checksum(i) field as-is.</t>

      <t>See: <xref target="integrity"/> for further discussion.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="udp-parcel" title="UDP Parcels">
      <t>A UDP Parcel is an IP Parcel that includes an IP header plus
      extensions with a Jumbo Payload option formed as shown in
      <xref target="jumbo-fmt"/> with Nsegs/J encoding one less than
      the number of segments and Jumbo Payload length encoding a value
      up to 16,777,215 (2**24 - 1). The IP header plus extensions is then
      followed by an 8-octet UDP header followed by an Integrity Block
      with (J + 1) consecutive 2-octet Checksums followed by (J + 1)
      upper layer protocol segments. Each segment must begin with a
      transport-specific start delimiter (e.g., a segment identifier)
      included by the transport layer user of UDP. The length of the first
      segment L is encoded in the IP {Total, Payload} Length field while
      J is encoded in the Nsegs octet. The overall length of the parcel
      as well as the final segment length are determined by the Jumbo
      Payload length M as discussed above.</t>

      <t>The source prepares UDP Parcels in a similar fashion as for UDP
      jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/> and therefore MUST set the UDP header
      length field to 0. The source then calculates the checksum of the UDP
      header plus IP pseudo-header (see: <xref target="integrity"/>) and
      writes the calculated value in the UDP header Checksum field as-is
      (i.e., without converting calculated '0' values to 'ffff').</t>

      <t>The source then calculates a separate checksum for each segment
      for which checksums are enabled independently over the length of the
      segment. As the source calculates each per-segment checksum for
      segment(i) (for i = 0 thru J), it writes the value into the
      corresponding Integrity Block Checksum(i) field with calculated
      '0' values converted to 'ffff'; for segments with checksums
      disabled, the source instead writes the value '0'.</t>

      <t>See: <xref target="integrity"/> for further discussion.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit" title="Transmission of IP Parcels">
      <t>The IP layer of the source next presents each parcel to a network
      interface for transmission. For ordinary IP interface attachments to
      parcel-capable links, the interface simply admits each parcel into
      the link the same as for any IP packet after which it may then be
      forwarded by any number of routers over additional consecutive
      parcel-capable links possibly even traversing the entire forward
      path to the final destination. If any router in the path does not
      recognize the parcel construct, it may drop the parcel and return
      an ICMP "Parameter Problem" message.</t>

      <t>Each parcel serves as an implicit probe of the forward path's
      ability to pass parcels. When a router that observes this specification
      receives an IP Parcel it first compares Code with 127 and Check with
      the IP header TTL/Hop Limit; if either value differs, the router
      drops the parcel and return a negative Parcel Reply (see
      <xref target="probe"/>). Otherwise, the router compares the value L
      with the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link MTU is too small to
      pass either a singleton parcel or an individual IP packet with segment
      of length L the router discards the parcel and returns an ICMP Packet
      Too Big (PTB) message <xref target="RFC1191"/><xref target="RFC8201"/>
      with MTU set to the next hop link MTU. Otherwise, if the next hop link
      is parcel capable the router MUST reset Check to the same value that
      would appear in the TTL/Hop Limit of the outgoing IP header if the
      parcel were forwarded to the next hop.</t>

      <t>If the router recognizes parcels but the next hop link in the path
      does not, or if the entire parcel would exceed the next hop link MTU, the
      router instead opens the parcel. The router then forwards each enclosed
      segment in singleton IP packets or in a set of smaller sub-parcels that
      each contain a subset of the original parcel's segments. If the next
      hop link is via an OMNI interface, the router instead proceeds according
      to OMNI Adaptation Layer procedures. These considerations are discussed
      in detail in the following sections.</t>

    <section anchor="xmit-singleton" title="Singleton IP Packets over Non-Parcel Links">
      <t>For transmission of singleton IP packets over links that do not
      support parcels, the router first determines whether a singleton
      parcel with segment of length L can fit within the next-hop link MTU.
      If not, the router returns a single PTB message with
      MTU set to the next-hop link MTU and containing the leading portion
      of the parcel beginning with the IP header, then drops the parcel.
      Otherwise, the router removes the Jumbo Payload option, sets
      aside and remembers the Integrity Block (and for TCP also truncates
      the Sequence Number headers of each non-first segment while remembering
      their values) then copies the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers followed by segment(i)
      (for i= 0 thru J) into i individual singleton IP packets. The router then
      sets IP {Total, Payload} length for each singleton(i) based on the length
      of segment(i) according to the standards <xref target="RFC0791"/>
      <xref target="RFC8200"/>. The router then processes each singleton(i)
      according to upper layer protocol conventions.</t>

      <t>For TCP, the router clears the SYN/ACK flags in all except
      singleton(0) then calculates the checksum for singleton(0)'s TCP/IP
      headers only according to <xref target="RFC9293"/> but with the Sequence
      Number value saved and the field set to 0. The router then adds Integrity
      Block Checksum(0) to the calculated value and writes the sum into
      singleton(0)'s TCP checksum field. The router then resets the Sequence
      Number field to singleton(0)'s saved sequence number and forwards
      singleton(0) to the next hop. The router next calculates the checksum
      of singleton(1)'s TCP/IP headers with the Sequence Number field set
      to 0 and saves the calculated value. In each non-first singleton(i)
      (for i = 1 thru J), the router then adds the saved value to Integrity
      Block Checksum(i), writes the sum into singleton(i)'s TCP checksum
      field, sets the TCP Sequence Number field to singleton(i)'s sequence
      number then forwards singleton(i) to the next hop.</t>

      <t>For UDP,  the router sets the UDP length field according to <xref
      target="RFC0768"/> in each singleton(i) (for i= 0 thru J). If Integrity
      Block Checksum(i) is 0, the router then sets the UDP header checksum
      to 0, forwards singleton(i) to the next hop and continues to the next.
      The router next calculates the checksum over singleton(i)'s UDP/IP
      headers only according to <xref target="RFC0768"/>. If Integrity Block
      Checksum(i) is not 'ffff', the router then adds the value to the header
      checksum; otherwise, the router re-calculates the checksum for segment(i).
      If the re-calculated segment(i) checksum value is 'ffff' or '0' the
      router adds the value to the header checksum; otherwise, it continues
      to singleton(i+1) (see note). The router finally writes the total
      checksum value into the UDP checksum field for singleton(i) (or
      writes 'ffff' if the total was '0') and forwards singleton(i) to
      the next hop.</t>

      <t>Note: for each UDP singleton(i), the router must recalculate
      the segment checksum if Checksum(i) is 'ffff', since that value is
      shared by both '0' and 'ffff' calculated checksums. If recalculating
      the checksum produces an incorrect value, segment(i) is considered
      errored and the router can optionally drop or forward (noting that
      the forwarded singleton would simply be discarded as an error by
      the final destination).</t>

      <t>Note: for each {TCP,UDP} singleton(i), the router can optionally
      re-calculate and verify the segment checksum unconditionally before
      forwarding, but this may introduce undesirable extra delay and
      processing overhead.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-subparcels" title="Sub-Parcels over Parcel-capable Links">
      <t>For transmission of smaller sub-parcels over parcel-capable links,
      the router first determines whether a single segment of length L can fit
      within the next-hop link MTU if packaged as a (singleton) sub-parcel. If
      not, the router returns a single PTB message with MTU set to the next-hop
      link MTU and containing the leading portion of the parcel beginning with
      the IP header, then drops the parcel. Otherwise, the router breaks the
      original parcel into smaller groups of segments that would fit within
      the path MTU by determining the number of segments of length L that can
      fit into each sub-parcel under the size constraints. For example, if the
      router determines that a sub-parcel can contain 3 segments of length L,
      it creates sub-parcels with the first containing Integrity Block
      Checksums/Segments 0-2, the second containing Checksums/Segments 3-5,
      etc., and with the final containing any remaining Checksums/Segments.</t>

      <t>When the router breaks an original parcel into sub-parcels, it first
      checks the "(S)ub-parcel" bit in the Jumbo Header. If the S bit is '0',
      the router sets the S bit in all resulting sub-parcels except the final
      one (i.e., the one containing the final segment, which may be of length
      K shorter than L). If the S bit is set, the router instead sets the S
      bit to '1' in all resulting sub-parcels including the final one.</t>

      <t>The router then appends identical {TCP,UDP}/IP headers (including the
      jumbo payload option and any other extensions) to each sub-parcel while
      resetting L and M in each according to the above equations with Nsegs/J
      set to 2 for each intermediate sub-parcel and with Nsegs/J set to one
      less than the remaining number of segments for the final sub-parcel. For
      TCP, the router then sets the TCP Sequence Number field to the value
      that appears in the first sub-parcel segment while removing the first
      segment Sequence Number field (if present) and also clears the SYN/ACK
      flags in all sub-parcels except the first. For both TCP and UDP, the
      router finally resets the {TCP,UDP} header checksum according to
      ordinary parcel formation procedures (see above) then forwards each
      (sub-)parcel over the outgoing parcel-capable link.</t>

      <t>Note: sub-dividing a larger parcel into two or more sub-parcels
      entails replication of the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers (including the
      jumbo payload option and any other extensions). For TCP, the process
      entails copying the full TCP/IP header from the original parcel while
      writing the sequence number of the first sub-parcel segment into the TCP
      Sequence Number field, clearing the SYN/ACK flags if necessary as discussed
      above and truncating the (new) first segment Sequence Number field. For
      UDP, the process entails copying the full UDP/IP header from the original
      parcel into each sub-parcel. For both TCP and UDP, the process finally
      includes recalculating and resetting Nsegs and Jumbo Payload Length then
      recalculating the {TCP,UDP} header checksum. Note that the per-segment
      Integrity Block Checksum values in the sub-parcel segments themselves
      are still valid and need not be recalculated.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-omni" title="Parcels/Sub-Parcels over OMNI Interfaces">
      <t>For transmission of original parcels or sub-parcels over OMNI
      interfaces, all parcels are admitted into the OMNI interface unconditionally
      since the OMNI interface MTU is unrestricted. The OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL)
      of this First Hop Segment (FHS) OAL source node then forwards the parcel to
      the next OAL hop which may be either an OAL intermediate node or a Last Hop
      Segment (LHS) OAL destination. OMNI interface upper layer protocol processing
      procedures are specified in detail in the remainder of this section, while
      lower layer encapsulation and fragmentation procedures are specified in
      detail in <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>.</t>

      <t>When the OAL source forwards a parcel or sub-parcel (whether generated
      by a local application or generated by another node then forwarded over
      one or more parcel-capable links), it first assigns a
      monotonically-incrementing (modulo 255) "Parcel ID" for adaptation
      layer processing. If the parcel is larger than the OAL maximum segment
      size of 65535 octets, the OAL source then subdivides the parcel into
      sub-parcels the same as for the IP layer procedures discussed above.
      The OAL source next assigns a different monotonically-incrementing
      adaptation layer Identification value for each sub-parcel of the same
      "Parcel ID" then performs adaptation layer encapsulation and fragmentation
      and finally forwards each fragment to the next OAL hop which forwards
      them further toward the OAL destination as necessary. (During encapsulation,
      the OAL source examines the Jumbo header S flag to determine the setting for
      the S flag in the fragment header according to the same rules discussed
      above.)</t>

      <t>When the sub-parcels arrive at the OAL destination, the node can
      optionally retain them along with their Parcel ID and Identifications
      for a brief time to support re-combining with peer sub-parcels of the 
      same original parcel identified by the adaptation layer 4-tuple
      consisting of the (source, destination, Identification, Parcel ID)
      fields. This re-combining entails the concatenation of Checksums/Segments
      included in sub-parcels with the same Parcel ID and with Identification
      values within 255 of one another to create a larger sub-parcel possibly
      even as large as the entire original parcel. Order of concatenation need
      not be strictly enforced, with the exception that the sub-parcel with S
      flag set to '0' must occur as a final concatenation and not as an
      intermediate. The recombined (sub)parcel then sets the S flag to '0'
      if and only if one of its recombined elements also had the S flag set
      to '0'; otherwise, it sets the S flag to '1'.</t>

      <t>The OAL destination then appends a common {TCP,UDP}/IP header plus
      extensions to each re-combined sub-parcel while resetting J, K, L and M
      in each according to the above equations. For TCP, if any sub-parcels
      have the SYN/ACK flags set the OAL destination also sets
      the SYN/ACK flags in the re-combined sub-parcel TCP header. The OAL
      destination then resets the {TCP,UDP}/IP header checksum for each
      re-combined sub-parcel. If the OAL destination is also the final
      destination, it then delivers the sub-parcels to the IP layer which
      processes them according to the 5-tuple information supplied by the
      original source. Otherwise, the OAL destination forwards each sub-parcel
      toward the final destination the same as for an ordinary IP packet as
      discussed above.</t>

      <t>Note: re-combining two or more sub-parcels into a larger parcel
      entails a process in which the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers of non-first
      sub-parcels are discarded and their included segments concatenated
      following those of a first sub-parcel. For TCP, the process includes
      setting the SYN/ACK flags in the TCP header only if SYN/ACK were set
      in any of the original sub-parcels. For both TCP and UDP, the process
      finally includes recalculating and resetting Nsegs and Jumbo Payload
      Length then recalculating the {TCP,UDP} header checksum as discussed
      above (the per-segment Integrity Block Checksums need not be
      recalculated). The OAL destination can instead avoid this process
      if it would negatively impact performance, noting that forwarding
      individual sub-parcels without delay and without re-combining is
      always acceptable.</t>

      <t>Note: sub-dividing of IP parcels over OMNI links occurs only at an
      OAL ingress node while re-combining of IP parcels occurs only at an OAL
      egress node. Therefore, intermediate OAL nodes do not participate in
      the sub-dividing or recombining processes. For TCP, the SYN/ACK flags
      must be managed as specified above to avoid confusing receivers with
      gratuitous duplicate ACKs.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="final-reass" title="Final Destination Reassembly">
    <t>When a large parcel is subdivided over a path that includes links with
    MTUs too small to pass the entire parcel, the final destination may receive
    multiple sub-parcels having the same 5-tuple and identification value.
    The final destination should hold the sub-parcels in a reassembly buffer
    for a short time or until a sub-parcel with the S flag set to '0' arrives.
    The final destination then concatenates the segments of all non-final
    sub-parcels and finally concatenates the segments of the final sub-parcel,
    then passes the reassembled parcel to upper layers.</t>

    <t>Note: due to the possibility of network loss and/or reordering, it
    may often be the case that the sub-parcel with S set to '0' arrives before
    all sub-parcels of the same original parcel with S set to '1' have arrived.
    This condition does not constitute an error, but may in some cases result
    in delivery of sub-parcels to upper layers that are smaller than the
    original parcel. Upper Layers will then process any segments received
    even if there may be some segment reordering, and will request
    retransmission of any segments that were lost and/or damaged.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="probe" title="Parcel Path Qualification">
      <t>To determine whether parcels are supported over at least an initial
      portion of the forward path toward the final destination, the original
      source can send IP parcels that contain Jumbo Payload options formatted
      as either ordinary parcels or special-purpose "Parcel Probes". The
      probe will elicit a "Parcel Reply" and possibly also an upper layer
      protocol-specific probe reply from the final destination.</t>

      <t>If the original source receives a positive Parcel Reply, it marks
      the path as "parcels supported" and ignores any ordinary ICMP <xref
      target="RFC0792"/><xref target="RFC4443"/> and/or Packet Too Big (PTB)
      messages <xref target="RFC1191"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> concerning the
      probe. If the original source instead receives a negative Parcel Reply
      or no reply, it marks the path as "parcels not supported" and may regard
      any ordinary ICMP and/or PTB messages concerning the probe (or its
      contents) as indications of a possible MTU restriction.</t>

      <t>The original source can therefore send Parcel Probes in parallel with
      sending real data as ordinary IP packets/parcels. The probes will
      traverse parcel-capable links joined by routers on the forward path
      possibly extending all the way to the destination. If the original
      source receives a Parcel Reply, it can continue using IP parcels.</t>

      <t>Parcel Probes include the same Jumbo Payload option type used for
      ordinary parcels (see: <xref target="parcels"/>) but set a different
      option length and include a 4-octet "Path MTU" field into which
      conformant routers write the minimum link MTU observed in a
      similar fashion as described in <xref target="RFC1063"/><xref
      target="I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option"/>. Parcel Probes include one or
      more upper layer protocol segments corresponding to the 5-tuple for
      the flow, which may also include {TCP,UDP} segment size probes used
      for packetization layer path MTU discovery <xref target="RFC4821"/>
      <xref target="RFC8899"/>.</t>

      <t>The original source sends Parcel Probes unidirectionally in the
      forward path toward the final destination to elicit a Parcel Reply,
      since it will often be the case that IP parcels are supported only
      in the forward path and not in the return path. Parcel Probes may be
      dropped in the forward path by any node that does not recognize IP
      parcels, but Parcel Replys must be packaged to avoid filtering since
      parcels may not be recognized along portions of the return path. For
      this reason, the Jumbo Payload options included in Parcel Probes are
      always packaged as IPv4 header options or IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options while
      Parcel Replys are returned as UDP/IP encapsulated ICMPv6 PTB messages
      with a "Parcel Reply" Code value (see: <xref
      target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>).</t>

      <t>Original sources send Parcel Probes that include a Jumbo Payload
      option coded in an alternate format as shown in <xref target="probe-fmt"/>:
      <figure anchor="probe-fmt"
              title="Parcel Probe Jumbo Payload Option Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |S|    Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-                    Identification                   -+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Path MTU (PMTU)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
        </figure>For IPv4, the original source includes the option as an IPv4
      header option with Type set to '00001011' the same as for an ordinary IPv4
      parcel (see: <xref target="parcels"/>) but with Length set to '00010100'
      to distinguish this as a probe. The original source sets S to '0', sets
      Code to 127, sets Check to the same value that will appear in the TTL
      of the outgoing IPv4 header, sets Identification to a 64-bit random
      number for this parcel probe and sets PMTU to the MTU of the outgoing
      IPv4 interface. The source next includes a {TCP,UDP} header followed by
      an Integrity Block with Checksums followed by their upper layer protocol
      Segments in the same format as for an ordinary parcel. (The source can
      also form a NULL probe by setting Protocol to "No Next Header (59)" and
      including an Integrity Block with Checksum fields set to '0' followed by
      NULL segments with null, random and/or other disposable payloads.) The
      source then sets {Nsegs, Jumbo Payload Length, IPv4 Total Length} and
      calculates the header and per-segment checksums the same as for an
      ordinary parcel. The source finally sends the Parcel Probe via the
      outbound IPv4 interface. According to <xref target="RFC7126"/>,
      middleboxes (i.e., routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that
      do not observe this specification SHOULD drop IP packets that contain
      option type '00001011' ("IPv4 Probe MTU") but some might instead either
      attempt to implement <xref target="RFC1063"/> or ignore the option
      altogether. IPv4 middleboxes that observe this specification instead
      MUST process the option as a Parcel Probe as specified below.</t>

      <t>For IPv6, the original source includes the probe option as an IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop option with Type set to '11000010' the same as for an
      ordinary IPv6 parcel (see: <xref target="parcels"/>) but with Length set
      to '00010010' to distinguish this as a probe. The original source sets
      S to '0', sets Code to 127, sets Check to the same value that will appear
      in the Hop Limit of the outgoing IPv6 header, sets Identification to a
      64-bit random number for this parcel probe and sets PMTU to the MTU
      of the outgoing IPv6 interface. The source next includes a {TCP,UDP}
      header followed by upper layer protocol Segments along with their
      Integrity Block Checksums in the same format as for an ordinary parcel.
      (The source can also form a NULL probe by setting Next Header to "No
      Next Header (59)" and including an Integrity Block with Checksum fields
      set to '0' followed by NULL segments with zero, random and/or other
      disposable payloads.) The source then sets {Nsegs, Jumbo Payload Length,
      IPv6 Payload Length} and calculates the header and per-segment checksums
      the same as for an ordinary parcel. The source finally sends the Parcel
      Probe via the outbound IPv6 interface. According to <xref target="RFC2675"/>,
      middleboxes (i.e., routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that
      recognize the IPv6 Jumbo Payload option but do not observe this
      specification SHOULD return an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message (and
      presumably also drop the packet) due to the different option length.
      IPv6 middleboxes that observe this specification instead MUST process
      the option as a Parcel Probe as specified below.</t>

      <t>When a router that observes this specification receives an
      IP Parcel Probe it first compares Code with 127 and Check with the
      IP header TTL/Hop Limit; if either value differs, the router MUST
      drop the probe and return a negative Parcel Reply (see below). Otherwise,
      if the next hop link is non-parcel-capable the router compares the PMTU value
      with the MTU of the inbound link for the probe and MUST (re)set PMTU to
      the lower MTU. The router then MUST return a positive Parcel Reply (see
      below) and convert the probe into an ordinary IP packet(s) the same as was
      described previously for routers forwarding to non-parcel-capable links.
      If the next hop IP link configures a sufficiently large MTU to pass the
      packet(s), the router converts the probe into ordinary IP packet(s) then
      MUST forward each packet to the next hop; otherwise, it drops the probe.
      If the next hop IP link both supports parcels and configures an MTU that
      is large enough to pass the probe, the router instead compares the probe
      PMTU value with the MTUs of both the inbound and outbound links for the
      probe and MUST (re)set PMTU to the lower MTU. The router then MUST reset
      Check to the same value that will appear in the TTL/Hop Limit of the
      outgoing IP header, and MUST forward the Parcel Probe to the next hop.
      If the next hop IP link supports parcels but configures an MTU that is
      too small to pass the probe, it resets PMTU and Check the same as above
      then subdivides the probe into multiple smaller probes small enough
      to traverse the link.</t>

      <t>The final destination may therefore receive either one or more
      ordinary IP packets or intact Parcel Probes. If the final destination
      receives ordinary IP packets, it performs any necessary integrity checks
      then delivers the packets to upper layers which will return an upper layer
      probe response if necessary. If the final destination receives a Parcel
      Probe, it first compares Code with 127 and Check with the IP header
      TTL/Hop Limit; if either value differs, the final destination MUST drop
      the probe and return a negative Parcel Reply. Otherwise, the final
      destination compares the probe PMTU value with the MTU of the inbound
      link and MUST (re)set PMTU to the lower MTU. The final destination
      then MUST return a positive Parcel Reply and deliver the probe
      contents to upper layers the same as for an ordinary IP parcel.</t>

      <t>When a router or final destination returns a Parcel Reply, it
      prepares an ICMPv6 PTB message <xref target="RFC4443"/> with Code set to
      "Parcel Reply" (see: <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>) and with
      MTU set to either the PMTU value reported in the Parcel Probe for a positive
      reply or to the value '0' for a negative reply. The node then writes its
      own IP address as the Parcel Reply source and writes the source of the
      Parcel Probe as the Parcel Reply destination (for IPv4 Parcel Probes,
      the node writes the Parcel Reply addresses as IPv4-Compatible IPv6
      addresses <xref target="RFC4291"/>). The node next copies as much of
      the leading portion of the Parcel Probe (beginning with the IP header)
      as possible into the "packet in error" field without causing the Parcel
      Reply to exceed 512 octets in length, then calculates the ICMPv6 header
      checksum. Since IPv6 packets cannot traverse IPv4 paths, and since
      middleboxes often filter ICMPv6 messages as they traverse IPv6 paths,
      the node next wraps the Parcel Reply in UDP/IP headers of the correct
      IP version with the IP source and destination addresses copied from
      the Parcel Reply and with UDP port numbers set to the UDP port number
      for OMNI <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>. In the process, the
      node either calculates or omits the UDP checksum as appropriate and
      (for IPv4) clears the DF bit. The node finally sends the prepared
      Parcel Reply to the original source of the probe.</t>

      <t>After sending a Parcel Probe the original source may therefore
      receive a UDP/IP encapsulated Parcel Reply (see above) and/or an upper
      layer protocol probe reply. If the source receives a Parcel Reply, it
      first verifies the checksum then matches the enclosed PTB message
      with the original Parcel Probe by examining the Identification field
      echoed in the ICMPv6 "packet in error" field containing the leading
      portion of the probe. If PTB does not match, the source discards the
      Parcel Reply; otherwise, it continues to process. If the Parcel Reply
      MTU is '0', the source marks the path as "parcels not supported";
      otherwise, it marks the path as "parcels supported" and also records
      the MTU value as the MTU for the parcel path (i.e., the portion of the
      path up to and including the node that returned the Parcel Reply). If
      the MTU value is 65535 or larger, the MTU determines the largest whole
      parcel size that can traverse the parcel path without subdivision while
      using any segment size up to and including the maximum. If the MTU
      value is smaller than 65535, the MTU represents both the largest
      whole parcel size and a maximum segment size limitation. In both
      cases, the maximum segment size that can traverse the parcel path
      may be larger than maximum segment size that can continue to
      traverse the remaining path to the final destination, which can
      only be determined through upper layer protocol probes.</t>

      <t>The original source can also use Parcel Path Qualification to
      qualify the path for ordinary IP jumbograms simply by setting the IP
      header length field to '0' and formatting the probe body as shown
      in <xref target="probe-fmt"/> but with the Nsegs/Jumbo Payload Length
      fields replaced by a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field. (The source
      can also form a NULL probe by setting Protocol/Next Header to "No
      Next Header (59)" and including a zero, random and/or other disposable
      jumbo payload.) Routers that forward the (Jumbogram) Parcel Probe will
      recognize the '0' IP header length as an indication that the probe is
      a true Jumbogram (i.e., and not a parcel). Each router sets PMTU to
      the largest Jumbogram size it is capable of forwarding, then forwards
      the probe to the next hop. If the next hop link does not support parcels,
      the router drops the probe and returns a negative Parcel Reply. If the
      next hop link supports parcels but configures a too-small MTU, the router
      instead drops the probe and returns a Parcel Reply with the restricting
      MTU value. If the Parcel Probe reaches the final destination, the
      destination returns a Parcel Reply with an MTU value that may be
      larger than the size of the probe but must not be smaller.</t>

      <t>Note: The original source includes Code and Check fields as the
      first 2 octets of Parcel Probes in case a router on the path
      overwrites the values in a wayward attempt to implement <xref
      target="RFC1063"/>. Parcel Probe recipients should therefore regard
      a Code value other than 127 as an indication that the field was
      either intentionally or accidentally altered by a previous hop
      node that does not recognize parcels.</t>

      <t>Note: If a router or final destination receives a Parcel Probe but
      does not recognize the parcel construct, it drops the probe without
      further processing (and may return an ICMP error). The original
      source will then consider the probe as lost and parcels cannot
      be used.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="integrity" title="Integrity">
      <t>The {TCP,UDP}/IP header plus each segment of a (multi-segment) IP
      parcel includes its own integrity check. This means that IP parcels can
      support stronger and more discrete integrity checks for the same amount
      of upper layer protocol data compared to an ordinary IP packet or
      Jumbogram. The {TCP/UDP} header integrity checks can be verified at
      each hop to ensure that parcels with errored headers are detected.
      The per-segment Integrity Block Checksums are set by the source and
      verified by the final destination, noting that TCP parcels must
      honor the sequence number discipline discussed in
      <xref target="tcp-parcel"/>.</t>

      <t>IP parcels can range in length from as small as only the {TCP,UDP}/IP
      headers plus a single Integrity Block Checksum with a non-zero length
      segment to as large as the headers plus (256 * (65535 minus headers)) octets.
      Although 32-bit link layer integrity checks provide sufficient protection
      for contiguous data blocks up to approximately 9KB, reliance on link-layer
      integrity checks may be inadvisable for links with significantly larger
      MTUs and may not be possible at all for links such as tunnels over IPv4
      that invoke fragmentation. Moreover, the segment contents of a received
      parcel may arrive in an incomplete and/or rearranged order with respect
      to their original packaging.</t>

      <t>Lower layer protocol entities calculate and verify {TCP,UDP}/IP
      parcel header Checksums at their layer, since an errored header could
      result in mis-delivery to the wrong upper layer protocol entity. If a
      lower layer protocol entity on the path detects an incorrect
      {TCP,UDP}/IP Checksum it discards the entire IP parcel unless the
      header(s) can somehow be repaired.</t>

      <t>To support the parcel header checksum calculation, lower layer
      protocol entities use modified versions of the {TCP,UDP}/IPv4
      "pseudo-header" found in <xref target="RFC0768"/><xref target="RFC9293"/>,
      or the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 "pseudo-header" found in Section 8.1 of
      <xref target="RFC8200"/>. Note that while the contents of the
      two IP protocol version-specific pseudo-headers beyond the address
      fields are the same, the order in which the contents are arranged
      differs and must be honored according to the specific IP protocol
      version 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}/IP Parcel Pseudo-Header Formats">
        <artwork><![CDATA[                       IPv4 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      IPv4 Source Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    IPv4 Destination Address                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      zero     |  Next Header  |        Segment Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |          Upper-Layer Packet Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                       IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      IPv6 Source Address                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                   IPv6 Destination Address                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |          Upper-Layer Packet Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Segment Length         |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>where the following fields appear in both pseudo-headers
          but with different ordering:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Source Address is the 4-octet IPv4 or 16-octet IPv6 source
          address of the prepared parcel.</t>

          <t>Destination Address is the 4-octet IPv4 or 16-octet IPv6
          destination address of the prepared parcel.</t>

          <t>zero encodes the constant value '0'.</t>

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

          <t>Segment Length is the value that appears in the IPv4 Total
          Length or IPv6 Payload Length field of the prepared parcel.</t>

          <t>Nsegs is a 1-octet value one less than the number of segments
          included, and must contain a number between 0 and 255 (this is
          the same value that appears in the Jumbo Payload Option Nsegs
          field).</t>

          <t>Upper-Layer Packet Length is the 3-octet length of the
          {TCP,UDP} header plus data (this value can be derived from
          the Jumbo Payload Length by subtracting the IPv4 header length
          for IPv4 or IPv6 extension header length for IPv6).</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Upper layer protocol entities use socket options to coordinate
      per-segment checksum processing with lower layers. If the upper layer
      sets a SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option, the upper layer is responsible for
      supplying per-segment checksums on transmission and the lower layer
      forwards the IP parcel to the next hop without further processing;
      otherwise, the lower layer supplies the per-segment checksums before
      forwarding. If the upper layer sets a SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option,
      the upper layer is responsible for verifying per-segment checksums on
      reception and the lower layer delivers each received parcel body to
      the upper layer without further processing; otherwise, the lower
      layer verifies the per-segment parcel checksums before delivering.</t>

      <t>When the upper layer protocol entity of the source sends a parcel
      body to lower layers, it prepends an Integrity Block of (J + 1) 2-octet
      Checksum fields and includes a 4-octet Sequence Number field with each
      TCP non-first segment. If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is set, the
      upper layer protocol either calculates each segment checksum and writes
      the value into the corresponding Checksum field (and for UDP with '0'
      values written as 'ffff') or writes the value '0' to disable checksums
      for specific segments (for UDP only). If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket
      options is clear, the upper layer instead writes the value '0' for
      UDP to disable or any non-zero value to enable checksums for specific
      segments.</t>

      <t>When the lower layer protocol entity of the source receives the
      parcel body from upper layers, if the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is
      set the lower layer appends the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers and forwards the
      parcel to the next hop without further processing. If the
      SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is clear, the lower layer instead
      calculates the checksum for each segment with a non-zero value in the
      corresponding Integrity Block Checksum field and overwrites the
      calculated value into the Checksum field (and for UDP with '0'
      values written as 'ffff').</t>

      <t>When the lower layer protocol entity of the destination receives a
      parcel from the source, if the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option is set the
      lower layer delivers the parcel body to the upper layer without further
      processing, and the upper layer is responsible for per-segment checksum
      verification. If the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option is clear, the lower
      layer instead verifies the checksum for each TCP segment (or each
      UDP segment with a non-zero value in the corresponding Integrity Block
      Checksum field) and marks a corresponding field for the segment in an
      ancillary data structure as one of "correct" or "incorrect". (For UDP,
      if the Checksum is '0' the lower layer protocol unconditionally marks
      the segment as "correct".) The lower layer then delivers both the parcel
      body (beginning with the Integrity block) and ancillary data to the
      upper layer which can then determine which segments have
      correct/incorrect checksums, noting that a '0' checksum always
      means that the checksum for this segment is disabled.</t>

      <t>Note: The Integrity Block itself is intentionally omitted from the IP
      Parcel {TCP,UDP} header checksum calculation. This permits destinations
      to accept as many intact segments as possible from received parcels with
      checksum block bit errors, whereas the entire parcel would need to be
      discarded if the header checksum also covered the Integrity Block.</t>

      <t>Note: IP parcels and jumbograms that set Protocol/Next Header to
      "No Next Header (59)" do not include a {TCP,UDP} Checksum field and
      therefore do not include a header checksum. Intermediate nodes simply
      forward these NULL parcels/jumbos without verifying a header checksum,
      while destination nodes simply discard them after returning a Parcel
      Reply, if necessary.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="issues" title="RFC2675 Updates">
      <t>Section 3 of <xref target="RFC2675"/> provides a list of certain
      conditions to be considered as errors. In particular:<list style="empty">
          <t>error: IPv6 Payload Length != 0 and Jumbo Payload option
          present</t>

          <t>error: Jumbo Payload option present and Jumbo Payload Length &lt;
          65,536</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Implementations that obey this specification ignore these conditions
      and do not regard them as errors.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jumbo" title="IPv4 Jumbograms">
      <t>By defining a new IPv4 Jumbo Payload option, this document also
      implicitly enables a true IPv4 jumbogram service defined as an IPv4
      packet with a Jumbo Payload option included and with Total Length set to
      0. All other aspects of IPv4 jumbograms are the same as for IPv6
      jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</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 (but non-standard)
      service that has been shown to improve performance in many
      instances.</t>

      <t>UDP/IPv4 parcels have been implemented in 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 IP 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 change the "MTUP - MTU Probe" entry in the
      'ip option numbers' registry to the "JUMBO - IPv4 Jumbo Payload" option.
      The Copy and Class fields must both be set to 0, and the Number and
      Value fields must both be set to '11'. The reference must be changed to
      this document [RFCXXXX].</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>In the control plane, original sources match the Identification
      values in received Parcel Replys with their corresponding Parcels
      or Parcel Probes. If the values match, the reply is likely authentic.
      In environments where stronger authentication is necessary, nodes
      that send Parcel Replys can apply the message authentication
      services specified for AERO/OMNI.</t>

      <t>In the data plane, multi-layer security solutions may be needed
      to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability. Since parcels
      are defined only for TCP and UDP, IP layer securing services such as
      IPsec-AH/ESP <xref target="RFC4301"/> cannot be applied directly to
      parcels, although they can certainly be used at lower layers such as
      for transmission of parcels over VPNs and/or OMNI link secured
      spanning trees. Since the IP layer does not manipulate segments
      exchanged with upper layers, parcels 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>Further security considerations related to IP parcels are found
      in the AERO/OMNI specifications.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations. The
      concepts were further motivated through discussions on the IETF intarea
      and 6man lists as well as with Boeing colleagues.</t>

      <t>A considerable body of work over recent years has produced useful
      "segmentation offload" facilities available in widely-deployed
      implementations.</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.9293"?>

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

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

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

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4301"?>

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1063"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7126"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1191"?>

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

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

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

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option"?>

      <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>
    </references>

    <section anchor="futures" title="IP Parcel Futures">
      <t>Both historic and modern-day data links configure Maximum Transmission
      Units (MTUs) that are far smaller than the desired state for IP parcel
      transmission futures. When the first Ethernet data links were deployed
      many decades ago, their 1500 octet MTU set a strong precedent that was
      widely adopted. This same size now appears as the predominant MTU limit
      for most paths in the Internet today, although modern link deployments
      with MTUs as large as 9KB have begun to emerge.</t>

      <t>In the late 1980's, the Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI)
      standard defined a new link type with MTU slightly larger than 4500
      octets. The goal of the larger MTU was to increase performance by a
      factor of 10 over the ubiquitous 10Mbps and 1500-octet MTU Ethernet
      technologies of the time. Many factors including a failure to harmonize
      MTU diversity and an Ethernet performance increase to 100Mbps led to
      poor FDDI market reception. In the next decade, the 1990's saw new
      initiatives including ATM/AAL5 (9KB MTU) and HiPPI (64KB MTU) which
      offered high-speed data link alternatives with larger MTUs but again
      the inability to harmonize diversity derailed their momentum. By the
      end of the 1990s and leading into the 2000's, emergence of the 1Gbps,
      10Gbps and even faster Ethernet performance levels seen today has
      obscured the fact that the modern Internet of the 21st century is
      still operating with 20th century MTUs!</t>

      <t>To bridge this gap, increased OMNI interface deployment in the
      near future will provide a virtual link type that can
      pass IP parcels over paths that traverse traditional data links with
      small MTUs. Performance analysis has proven that (single-threaded)
      receive-side performance is bounded by upper layer protocol segment
      size, with performance increasing in direct proportion with segment
      size. Experiments have also shown measurable (single-threaded) performance
      increases by including larger numbers of segments per parcel, with steady
      increases for including increasing number of segments. However, parallel
      receive-side processing will provide performance multiplier benefits
      since the multiple segments that arrive in a single parcel can be
      processed simultaneously instead of serially.</t>

      <t>In addition to the clear near-term benefits, IP parcels will increase
      performance to new levels as future parcel-capable links with very
      large MTUs begin to emerge. These links will provide MTUs far in excess
      of 64KB to as large as 16MB. With such large MTUs, the traditional CRC-32
      (or even CRC-64) error checking with errored packet discard discipline
      will no longer apply for large parcels. Instead, parcels larger than a
      link-specific threshold will include Forward Error Correction (FEC)
      codes so that errored parcels can be repaired at the receiver's data
      link layer then delivered to upper layers rather than being discarded
      and triggering retransmission of large amounts of data. Even if the
      FEC repairs are incomplete or imperfect, all parcels can still be
      delivered to upper layers where the individual segment checksums
      will detect and discard any damaged data not repaired by lower layers.</t>

      <t>These new "super-links" will appear mostly in the network edges
      (e.g., high-performance data centers) and not as often in the middle
      of the Internet. (However, some space-domain links that
      extend over enormous distances may also benefit.) For this reason, a
      common use case will include parcel-capable super-links in the edge
      networks of both parties of an end-to-end session with an OMNI link
      connecting the two over wide area Internetworks. Medium- to moderately
      large-sized IP parcels over OMNI links will already provide considerable
      performance benefits for wide-area end-to-end communications while truly
      large IP parcels over super-links can provide boundless increases for
      localized bulk transfers in edge networks or for deep space long haul
      transmissions. The ability to grow and adapt without practical bound
      enabled by IP parcels will inevitably encourage new data link
      development leading to future innovations in new markets that will
      revolutionize the Internet.</t>

      <t>Until these new links begin to emerge, however, parcels will already
      provide a tremendous benefit to end systems by allowing applications to
      send and receive segment buffers larger than 65535 octets in a single
      system call. By expanding the current operating system call data copy
      limit from its current 16-bit length to a 32-bit length, applications
      will be able to send and receive maximum-length parcel buffers even if
      lower layers need to break them into multiple parcels to fit within the
      underlying interface MTU. For applications such as the Delay Tolerant
      Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol <xref target="RFC9171"/>, this will
      allow applications to send and receive entire large upper layer
      protocol constructs (such as DTN bundles) in a single system call.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="changes" title="Change Log">
      <t>&lt;&lt; RFC Editor - remove prior to publication &gt;&gt;</t>

      <t>Changes from earlier versions:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Submit for Intarea Standards Track RFC Publication.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
