<?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-43"
     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="8" month="February" year="2023"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>IP packets (both IPv4 and IPv6) 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 delivery protocol users of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
      prepare data units known as "segments", with each individual IP packet
      including only a single segment. This document presents a new construct
      known as the "IP Parcel" which permits a single packet to carry multiple
      transport layer protocol segments in 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 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 delivery 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", with each individual IP packet
      including only a single segment. This document presents a new construct
      known as the "IP Parcel" which permits a single packet to carry
      multiple transport layer protocol segments. This essentially creates
      a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IP headers appearing
      only once but with possibly more than one segment.</t>

      <t>Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a
      data buffer (or buffer chain) beginning with an Integrity Block of at
      most 256 2-octet Checksums followed by their corresponding transport
      layer protocol segments that can be broken out into individual packets
      and/or smaller sub-parcels 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 transport layer protocol entity then delivers
      the buffer(s), number of segments and non-final segment size to the
      network layer which copies the buffer(s) into the body of a parcel
      then includes a {TCP,UDP} header and an IP header plus extensions
      that identify this as a parcel and not an ordinary packet.</t>

      <t>The network layer then forwards each parcel over consecutive
      parcel-capable links in a path until they arrive at a next hop
      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 original source or next hop
      router applies packetization to break the parcel into individual IP
      packets. In the second case, the source/router applies network layer
      parcellation to form smaller sub-parcels. In the final case, the
      OMNI interface applies adaptation layer parcellation to form smaller
      sub-parcels if necessary then applies adaptation layer encapsulation
      and fragmentation if necessary before forwarding.</t>

      <t>These adaptation layer sub-parcels may then be reconstituted into
      one or more larger sub-parcels by an egress middlebox OMNI interface
      which either delivers them locally or forwards them over additional
      parcel-capable links in the network path to the final destination.
      The final destination can then apply network layer reconstitution (or
      reconstruction) to concatenate elements of the same original parcel
      into a single unit so as to present the largest possible number of
      segments to the transport layer in a single system call. Reordering
      and even loss or damage of individual segments within the network is
      therefore possible, but what matters is that the parcels delivered
      to the final destination's transport layer should be the largest
      practical size 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 inspire future innovation in applications,
      transport protocols, operating systems, network equipment and data
      links while advancing the worldwide Internetworking architecture.</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 at most
      256 transport 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
      constructs specified 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 {TCP,UDP} 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 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 OMNI
      specification further defines 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 simply known as "the layer  below L3 but above L2" and does
      not assign a layer number itself. 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 "parcel-capable link/path" refers to paths that traverse
      interfaces to L2 and/or adaptation layer media (physical or virtual)
      capable of transiting {TCP,UDP}/IP packets that employ the parcel
      constructs specified in this document. The source and each router
      in the path has a "next hop link" that forwards parcels toward the
      final destination, while each router and the final destination has a
      "previous hop link" that accepts en route parcels. Each next hop link
      MUST be capable of forwarding parcels with segment lengths that fit
      within the minimum of the link Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) and
      65535, while first applying parcellation if necessary. Currently,
      only the OMNI link satisfies these properties, but new and existing
      link types are also encouraged to support parcels.</t>

      <t>The term "5-tuple" is a transport layer protocol entity identifier
      that consists of the network layer (source address, destination address,
      source port, destination port, protocol number). The term "3-tuple" is
      a network layer (sub-)parcel entity identifier that consists of the
      adaptation layer (source address, destination address, Parcel ID).</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 network layer IP fragmentation. If the MTU value
      returned during parcel path qualification is larger than 65535 (plus
      the length of the parcel headers), it determines the maximum parcel
      size that can traverse the link/path without requiring a router to
      perform packetization/parcellation. Otherwise, the MTU determines
      the "Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" for the leading portion of the
      path up to a router that cannot pass the parcel further. (Note
      that this size may be larger than the MSS that can traverse the
      remainder of the path to the final destination, which can only
      be determined through packetization layer MSS probing - see:
      <xref target="xmit"/>.)</t>

      <t>The terms "packetization" and "reconstruction" refer to a network
      layer process in which the original source or a router on the path
      breaks a (sub-)parcel out into individual IP packets that can transit
      the remainder of the path without loss due to a size restriction.
      These packets are then reconstructed by the final destination
      into a (sub-)parcel before delivery to the transport layer. In
      current practice, packetization/reconstruction can be considered
      to be one and the same as Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload
      (GSO/GRO).</t> 

      <t>The terms "parcellation" and "reconstitution" refer to either
      network layer or adaptation layer processes in which the original
      source or a router on the path breaks a (sub-)parcel into smaller
      (sub-)parcels that can transit the path without loss due to a size
      restriction. These (sub-)parcels are then reconstituted into larger
      (sub-)parcels before delivery to the transport layer. As a network
      layer process, the (sub-)parcels resulting from parcellation may
      only be reconstituted at the final destination. As an adaptation
      layer process, the resulting (sub)-parcels may be first reconstituted
      at an adaptation layer egress node then further reconstituted by
      the network layer of the final destination.</t>

      <t>The parcel sizing variables "J", "K", "L" and "M" are cited
      extensively throughout the document. "J" denotes the number of
      segments included in the parcel (also termed "Nsegs"), "L" is the
      length of each non-final segment, "K" is the length of the final
      segment and "M" is the overall parcel length (also termed "Jumbo
      Payload Length").</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 architectural framework for transmission of IP parcels over
      existing Internetworks. AERO/OMNI are expected to provide an operational
      environment for IP parcels beginning from the earliest deployment phases
      and extending to accommodate continuous future growth. As more and more
      parcel-capable links are deployed (e.g., in data centers, edge networks,
      space-domain, and other high data rate services) AERO/OMNI will continue
      to provide an essential service for true IP parcel Internetworking.</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
      service that has shown significant performance increases based on a
      multi-segment transfer capability between the operating system kernel
      and QUIC applications. GSO/GRO performs 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 approach
      proposed 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 jumbograms natively are not yet widely available.
      Hence, IP parcels 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) message <xref target="RFC1191"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> may
      be lost somewhere in the return path 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 loss of packets due to size restrictions is minimized.</t>

      <t>These considerations therefore motivate a design where transport
      protocols can employ a maximum segment size as large as 65535
      octets (minus headers), while parcels that carry multiple segments
      may themselves be significantly larger. 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 and lower layers need to apply
      packetization/reconstruction, parcellation/reconstitution 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 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>A transport protocol entity identified by its 5-tuple
      forms a parcel body when it prepares a data buffer (or buffer chain)
      containing an Integrity Block of at most 256 2-octet Checksums
      followed by their corresponding transport layer protocol segments,
      with each TCP non-first segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence
      Number header. All non-final segments MUST be equal in length
      while the final segment MUST NOT be larger and MAY be smaller.</t>

      <t>The non-final segment size L SHOULD NOT be larger than the minimum
      of 65535 octets and the path MTU, minus the length of the {TCP,UDP}
      header (plus options), minus the length of the IP header (plus
      options/extensions), minus 2 octets for the per-segment Checksum.
      The transport layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s)
      and size L to the network layer, noting that the combined buffer
      length(s) may exceed 65535 octets if there are sufficient segments
      of a large enough size. (See: <xref target="borderline"/> for
      further discussion.)</t>

      <t>If the next hop link is not parcel capable, the network layer
      performs packetization to configure each segment as an individual IP
      packet as discussed in <xref target="xmit-singleton"/>. Otherwise,
      the network layer forms a parcel by appending a single full {TCP,UDP}
      header (plus options) and a single full IP header (plus options/extensions).
      The network layer finally includes a specially-formatted "Jumbo Payload"
      option as an extension to the IP header of each parcel prior to
      transmission over a network interface.</t>

      <t>For IPv4, the Jumbo Payload option is included as an IPv4 header
      option with format derived from <xref target="RFC2675"/> except that
      the network layer sets option type to '00001011' and option length to
      '00010000' (noting that the length also distinguishes this type from
      its obsoleted use as the "IPv4 Probe MTU" option <xref target="RFC1063"/>).
      The option is formed as shown in
      <xref target="jumbo-fmt4"/>:<figure anchor="jumbo-fmt4"
              title="IPv4 Jumbo Payload Option Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Identification                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |P|S| Reserved  |                Path MTU (PMTU)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
        </figure>The network layer sets Code to 255 and sets Check to the
      same value that will appear in the TTL of the outgoing IPv4 header.
      The network layer next sets Nsegs to a value J between 0 and 255 and
      sets Jumbo Payload Length 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.
      Next, the network layer sets Identification as discussed in <xref
      target="xmit"/>, sets the "(P)robe Path MTU" flag to '1' for probes
      or '0' for non-probes and sets the "More (S)ub-parcels" flag to '1'
      for non-final sub-parcels or '0' for the final (sub-)parcel. The
      network layer finally sets the IPv4 header DF bit to 1 and Total
      Length field to the non-final segment size L.</t>

      <t>For IPv6, the Jumbo Payload option is included as an IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop option formatted the same as for IPv4 above, but with
      option type set to '11001110', option length set to '00001100'
      and with the Code/Check fields omitted. The option is formed as
      shown in <xref target="jumbo-fmt6"/>:<figure anchor="jumbo-fmt6"
      title="IPv6 Jumbo Payload Option Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Identification                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |P|S| Reserved  |                Path MTU (PMTU)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
        </figure>The network layer sets Nsegs 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. Next, the network layer sets Identification as discussed
      in <xref target="xmit"/>, sets the P flag to '1' for probes or
      '0' for non-probes and sets the S flag to '1' for non-final
      sub-parcels or '0' for the final (sub-)parcel. The network layer
      finally sets the IPv6 header Payload Length field to L.</t>

      <t>Following transport and network layer processing, {TCP,UDP}/IP
      parcels therefore have the structures 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 be larger than
      1 and no larger than 65535 octets, and K is the length of the final
      segment which MUST be no larger than L.</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) transport
      layer 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 Number
      headers, with the 4-octet length included in L and K.)</t>

      <t>The Jumbo Payload option Nsegs value unambiguously determines
      the number of 2-octet Checksums present in the Integrity Block and
      (together with the IP {Total, Payload} length and Jumbo Payload
      Length) also determines the number of parcel data segments present.
      Nodes that process and forward IP parcels therefore observe the
      following requirements:<list style="symbols">
          <t>if the Jumbo Payload Length indicates insufficient space for
          the full Integrity Block plus at least one data segment of
          length K, 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 fast IPv4 links with small
      MTUs. Even in that case, however, only the fragmented Integrity Block
      (i.e., and not the entire parcel) may need to be pulled into the
      contiguous head of a kernel receive buffer.</t>

      <t>Note: For IPv4 parcels, the first 2 octets of the Jumbo Payload option
      include Code and Check fields in case a router on the path overwrites
      the values in a wayward attempt to implement <xref target="RFC1063"/>.
      IPv4 parcel recipients should therefore regard an incorrect Code or
      Check value as evidence that the field was either accidentally or
      intentionally corrupted by a previous hop node.</t>

    <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="parcels"/> 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 header) and the final segment is K octets in
      length (including its own 4-octet Sequence Number header). The
      minimum L value for TCP is therefore 5 octets (4 control plus 1
      data octet). 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 Nsegs and the Jumbo Payload length M as
      discussed above. (See: <xref target="borderline"/> for further
      discussion.)</t>

      <t>The source prepares TCP Parcels in a similar fashion as for simple
      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 an integrity 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 segment(i)
      checksum (for i = 0 thru J), it writes the value into the
      corresponding Integrity Block Checksum(i) field as-is.</t>

      <t>Note: The parcel TCP header Source Port, Destination Port and
      (per-segment) Sequence Number fields apply to all parcel segments,
      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>

      <t>See <xref target="extend"/> for additional TCP considerations. See
      <xref target="integrity"/> for additional integrity considerations.</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="parcels"/> 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)
      transport layer 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 minimum L value
      for UDP is therefore 2 octets (1 control plus 1 data octet). 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.
      (See: <xref target="borderline"/> for further discussion.)</t>

      <t>The source prepares UDP Parcels in a similar fashion as for simple
      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 segment(i) checksum (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 additional integrity considerations.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit" title="Transmission of IP Parcels">
      <t>Following {TCP,UDP} parcel assembly, the network layer of the source
      fully populates all IP header fields including the source address,
      destination address and Jumbo Payload option as discussed above.
      The source also maintains a randomly-initialized 32-bit cached
      Identification value for each destination. For each parcel
      transmission, the network layer sets the Jumbo Payload Identification
      field to the current cached value for this destination then
      increments the cached value by 1 (modulo 2**32). The network layer
      can subsequently reset each cached value to a new random value
      at any time, e.g., to maintain an unpredictable profile.</t>

      <t>The network layer of the source next presents each parcel to an
      interface for transmission to the next hop. For ordinary interface
      attachments to parcel-capable links, the interface simply admits each
      parcel into the link the same as for any IP packet where it may be
      forwarded by one or more routers over additional consecutive
      parcel-capable links possibly even traversing the entire forward
      path to the final destination. If any node in the path does not
      recognize the parcel construct, it may drop the parcel and return
      an ICMP "Parameter Problem" message.</t>

      <t>When the next hop link does not support parcels at all, or when
      the next hop link is parcel-capable but configures an MTU that is
      too small to pass the entire parcel, the source breaks the parcel
      up into individual IP packets (in the first case) or into smaller
      sub-parcels (in the second case). In the first case, the source
      can apply "packetization" using Generic Segment Offload (GSO), and
      the final destination can apply "reconstruction" using Generic Receive
      Offload (GRO) to deliver the largest possible parcel buffer(s)
      to the transport layer. In the second case, the source can apply
      "parcellation" to break the parcel into sub-parcels which each
      contain the same Identification value and with the S flag set
      appropriately. The final destination can then apply "reconstitution"
      to deliver the largest possible parcel buffer(s) to the transport
      layer. In all other ways, the source processes of breaking a
      parcel up into individual IP packets or smaller sub-parcels
      entails the same considerations as for a router on the path that
      invokes these processes as discussed in the following subsections.</t>

      <t>Each parcel serves as an implicit probe that tests the forward
      path's ability to pass parcels. Each parcel header also includes a
      24-bit "Path MTU (PMTU)" field into which the source writes the
      minimum of the next hop link MTU and (2**24 - 1) and each router
      in the path rewrites PMTU in a similar fashion as for <xref
      target="RFC1063"/><xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option"/>.
      In particular, each router compares the parcel PMTU value with
      the next hop link MTU in the parcel path and MUST (re)set PMTU to
      the minimum value. Note that the fact that the parcel traversed
      a previous hop link should provide acceptable evidence of forward
      progress since parcel path MTU determination is unidirectional in
      the forward path only. However, nodes can also include the previous
      hop link MTU in their minimum PMTU calculations in case the link
      may have an ingress size restriction (such as a receive buffer
      limitation). Each parcel also includes one or more transport layer
      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"/>.
      (See: <xref target="probe"/> for further details on implicit/explicit
      path probing.)</t>

      <t>When a router receives an IPv4 parcel it first compares Code with
      255 and Check with the IPv4 header TTL; if either value differs, the
      router drops the parcel and returns a negative Parcel Reply (see <xref
      target="probe"/>). For all other IP parcels, the router next 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 a single segment of length L the router discards the parcel and
      returns a positive Parcel Reply with MTU set to the next hop link MTU.
      Otherwise, for IPv4 parcels if the next hop link is parcel capable the
      router MUST reset Check to the same value that would appear in the TTL
      of the outgoing IPv4 header for forwarding the parcel 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 individual 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="Packetization over Non-Parcel Links">
      <t>For transmission of individual IP packets over links that do not
      support parcels, the source or router (i.e., the node) performs
      packetization by engaging GSO.
      The node first determines whether an individual packet with segment of
      length L can fit within the next hop link MTU. If not, the node drops
      the parcel and returns a positive Parcel Reply message with MTU set
      to the next hop link MTU and with the leading portion of the parcel
      beginning with the IP header as the "packet in error". Otherwise,
      the node removes the Jumbo Payload option, sets aside and remembers
      the Integrity Block (and for TCP also sets aside and remembers the
      Sequence Number header values of each non-first segment)
      then copies the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers (but with the Jumbo Payload
      option removed) followed by segment(i) (for i= 0 thru J) into 'i'
      individual IP packets ("packet(i)"). The node then clears the TCP
      control bits in all but packet(0), and includes only those TCP
      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 node then
      sets IP {Total, Payload} length for each packet(i) based on the
      length of segment(i) according to the IP protocol standards
      <xref target="RFC0791"/><xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>For each IPv6 packet(i), the node includes an IPv6 Fragment Header
      and sets the Identification field to the value found in the parcel
      header. For each IPv4 packet(i), the node sets the Identification
      field to the least significant 16 bits of the value found in the
      parcel header and sets the (D)ont Fragment flag to '1'. For each
      IP packet(i), the node then sets both the Fragment Offset field
      and (M)ore fragments flag to '0' to produce an unfragmented IP
      packet. For IPv6, destinations will process these "atomic fragments"
      as whole packets instead of admitting them into the reassembly cache,
      i.e., the same as for IPv4. The node then processes further according
      to transport layer protocol conventions as follows.</t>

      <t>For TCP, the node calculates the checksum for packet(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 node then adds
      Integrity Block Checksum(0) to the calculated value and writes the sum
      into packet(0)'s TCP Checksum field. The node then resets the Sequence
      Number field to packet(0)'s saved sequence number and forwards
      packet(0) to the next hop. The node next calculates the checksum
      of packet(1)'s TCP/IP headers with the Sequence Number field set
      to 0 and saves the calculated value. In each non-first packet(i)
      (for i = 1 thru J), the node then adds the saved value to Integrity
      Block Checksum(i), writes the sum into packet(i)'s TCP Checksum
      field, sets the TCP Sequence Number field to packet(i)'s sequence
      number then forwards packet(i) to the next hop.</t>

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

      <t>Note: for each UDP packet(i), the node 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 node can optionally drop or forward (noting that
      the forwarded packet would simply be discarded as an error by the
      final destination).</t>

      <t>Note: for each {TCP,UDP} packet(i), the node 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="Parcellation over Parcel-capable Links">
      <t>For transmission of smaller sub-parcels over parcel-capable links,
      the source or router (i.e., the node) 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 node returns a positive Parcel Reply
      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 node employs network layer parcellation to break 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 node 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>The node then appends identical {TCP,UDP}/IP headers (including the
      Jumbo Payload option and any other extensions) to each sub-parcel while
      resetting ({Total, Payload} Length/L) and (Jumbo Payload Length/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
      node then clears the TCP control bits in all but the first sub-parcel
      and includes only those TCP options that are permitted to appear in
      data segments in all but the first sub-parcel (which may also include
      control segment options). For both TCP and UDP, the node then resets
      the {TCP,UDP} Checksum according to ordinary parcel formation
      procedures (see above). The node then sets the TCP Sequence Number
      field to the value that appears in the first sub-parcel segment while
      removing the first segment's Sequence Number header (if present).</t>

      <t>When the node breaks an original parcel into sub-parcels, it also
      checks the "(S)ub-parcel" flag in the Jumbo Header. If the S flag is
      '0', the node sets S to '1' in all resulting sub-parcels except the last
      (i.e., the one containing the final segment of length K, which may be
      shorter than L) for which it sets S to '0'. If the S flag is '1', the
      node instead sets S to '1' in all resulting sub-parcels including the
      last. The node finally sets PMTU to the next hop link MTU then forwards
      each (sub-)parcel over the parcel-capable next hop link.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-omni" title="OMNI Interface Parcellation and Reconstitution">
      <t>For transmission of original parcels or sub-parcels over OMNI
      interfaces, the node admits all parcels into the 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 parcellation and reconstitution
      procedures are specified in detail in the remainder of this
      section, while (sub-)parcel encapsulation and fragmentation
      procedures are specified in <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>.</t>

      <t>When the OAL source forwards a (sub-)parcel (whether generated
      by a local application or forwarded over a network path that
      traversed one or more parcel-capable links), it first assigns a
      monotonically-incrementing (modulo 255) adaptation layer "Parcel ID".
      If the parcel is larger than the OAL maximum segment size of 65535
      octets, the OAL source then employs adaptation layer parcellation to
      break the parcel into sub-parcels the same as for the network 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 toward the OAL destination as necessary. (During
      encapsulation, the OAL source examines the Jumbo Payload option S
      flag to determine the setting for the adaptation layer fragment
      header S flag according to the same rules specified in <xref
      target="xmit-subparcels"/>.)</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 reconstitution with peer sub-parcels of
      the same original (sub-)parcel identified by its 3-tuple.
      This reconstitution 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 (sub-)parcel. Order of concatenation
      need not be strictly enforced, except that if a sub-parcel has TCP
      control bits set it must appear as a first concatenated element in
      a reconstituted larger parcel, and that the sub-parcel with S flag
      set to '0' must occur as a final concatenation. The reconstituted
      (sub-)parcel then sets S to '0' if and only if one of its constituent
      elements also had S set to '0'; otherwise, it sets S to '1'.</t>

      <t>The OAL destination then appends a common {TCP,UDP}/IP header plus
      extensions to each reconstituted sub-parcel while resetting J, K, L
      and M in the corresponding header fields of each. For TCP, if any
      sub-parcel has TCP control bits set the OAL destination regards it
      as sub-parcel(0) and uses its TCP header as the header of the
      reconstituted (sub-)parcel. The OAL destination then resets the
      {TCP,UDP}/IP header checksum. If the OAL destination is also the
      final destination, it then delivers the sub-parcels to the network
      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: Adaptation layer parcellation over OMNI links occurs only
      at the OAL source while the adaptation layer reconstitution occurs
      only at the OAL destination. The OAL destination can instead avoid
      this process if it would negatively impact performance, noting that
      forwarding individual sub-parcels without delay and without
      reconstitution is always acceptable (but not always optimal).
      Intermediate OAL nodes do not participate in the parcellation or
      reconstitution processes.</t>

      <t>Note: OMNI interface parcellation and reconstitution is an OAL
      process based on the adaptation layer 3-tuple and not the network
      layer 5-tuple. This is true even if the OAL has visibility into
      network layer information since some sub-parcels of the same
      original parcel may be forwarded over different network paths.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="final-reass" title="Final Destination Reconstruction/Reconstitution">
      <t>If the original source or a router on the path opens a parcel
      and forwards its contents as individual IP packets, these packets
      will arrive at the final destination which may hold them in a
      reconstruction buffer for a short time then reconstruct them
      using GRO. The 5-tuple information plus the Identification value
      provides sufficient context for GRO reconstruction which practical
      implementations have proven can provide a robust service at high
      data rates even for IPv4 with its 16-bit Identification limitation.</t>

      <t>When a large parcel transits a path that includes links with
      restrictive MTUs, the final destination may receive multiple
      sub-parcels having the same 5-tuple and Identification value. The
      final destination can hold the sub-parcels in a reconstitution
      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, then finally concatenates the segments
      of the final sub-parcel and passes the reconstituted parcel to
      the transport layer.</t>

      <t>Since loss and/or reordering may occur in the network, the
      final destination may receive a sub-parcel with S set to '0' before
      all other sub-parcels of the same original parcel have arrived.
      This condition does not represent an error, but in some cases
      may cause the network layer to deliver sub-parcels that are
      smaller than the original parcel to the transport layer. The
      transport layer simply processes any segments received from all
      such deliveries and will request retransmission of any segments
      that were lost and/or damaged.</t>

      <t>Note: in both the individual packet reconstruction/GRO and
      sub-parcel reconstitution cases, segments are concatenated in
      the order they were received even if some small degree of
      reordering and/or loss may have occurred in the networked path.
      This eliminates the need for a Fragment Offset value,
      since each sub-parcel or individual IP packet contains an
      integral number of whole transport layer protocol segments which
      are not themselves fragmented. The network layer can then present
      the concatenated parcel contents to the transport layer with
      segments arranged in (nearly) the same order in which they were
      originally transmitted. Strict ordering is not required
      since each segment will include a transport layer protocol
      specific start delimiter with positional coordinates.</t>

      <t>Note: Reconstruction and/or reconstitution buffer congestion
      may indicate that full reconstruction/reconstitution cannot be
      sustained at current arrival rates. The network layer should
      then begin delivering partial concatenations or even individual
      segments to a transport layer receive queue (e.g., a socket buffer)
      instead of waiting for all segments to arrive. The network layer
      can manage reconstruction/reconstitution buffers, e.g., by
      maintaining buffer occupancy high/low watermarks.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="probe" title="Parcel Path Probing">
      <t>All parcels serve as implicit probes and may cause either a router
      in the path or the final destination to return an ordinary ICMP error
      <xref target="RFC0792"/><xref target="RFC4443"/> and/or Packet Too
      Big (PTB) message <xref target="RFC1191"/><xref target="RFC8201"/>
      concerning the parcel. A router in the path or the final destination
      may also return an unsolicited negative "Parcel Reply" if the parcel
      cannot make further forward progress.</t>

      <t>To unambiguously determine whether parcels can transit at least
      an initial portion of the forward path toward the final destination,
      the original source can also send IP parcels with the Jumbo Payload
      option P flag set to '1' as an explicit "Parcel Probe". The probe
      will elicit a Parcel Reply from a router or the final destination
      (and possibly also one or more transport layer protocol-specific
      probe replys from the final destination) while the parcel itself
      may continue to make forward progress.</t>

      <t>A Parcel Probe can be included either in an ordinary data parcel
      or a {TCP,UDP}/IP parcel with destination port set to '9' (discard)
      <xref target="RFC0863"/>. The probe will still contain a valid
      {TCP,UDP} parcel header Checksum that any intermediate hops as
      well as the final destination can use to detect mis-delivery,
      while the final destination will process any parcel data in
      probes with correct Checksums.</t>

      <t>If the original source receives a positive Parcel Reply, it marks
      the path as "parcels supported" and ignores any ordinary ICMP and/or
      PTB messages 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 path limitation.</t>

      <t>The original source can therefore send Parcel Probes in the
      same IP parcels used to carry real data. 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 positive Parcel Reply, it can continue using IP parcels
      (while also adjusting its current segment size if necessary).</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 return path
      filtering. 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 ordinary parcels or discard parcels as
      explicit Parcel Probes by setting the Jumbo Payload P flag to '1'
      and PMTU to the minimum of the next hop link MTU and (2**24 - 1).
      The source then sets Nsegs, Jumbo Payload Length, and {Total,
      Payload} Length, then calculates the header and per-segment
      checksums the same as for an ordinary parcel. The source finally
      sends the Parcel Probe via the outbound IP interface.</t>

      <t>According to <xref target="RFC7126"/>, IPv4 middleboxes (i.e.,
      routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that do not observe this
      specification SHOULD drop IPv4 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 an implicit or explicit Parcel Probe as specified below.</t>

      <t>According to <xref target="RFC2675"/>, IPv6 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 validation rules for ordinary jumbograms. IPv6
      middleboxes that observe this specification instead MUST process
      the option as an implicit or explicit Parcel Probe as specified below.</t>

      <t>When a router that observes this specification receives an IPv4
      Parcel Probe it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IP
      header TTL; if either value differs, the router MUST drop the probe
      and return a negative Parcel Reply (see below). For all other IP
      Parcel Probes, if the next hop link is non-parcel-capable the router
      compares PMTU with the next hop link MTU and MUST return a positive
      Parcel Reply (see below) with MTU set to the minimum value. If the
      next hop link configures a sufficiently large MTU, the router then
      applies packetization to convert the probe into individual IP
      packet(s) and forwards each packet to the next hop; otherwise,
      it drops the probe.</t>

      <t>If the next hop link both supports parcels and configures an MTU
      that is large enough to pass the probe, the router instead compares
      the probe PMTU with the next hop link MTU and MUST (re)set PMTU to
      the minimum value then forward the probe to the next hop (and for
      IPv4 first reset Check to the same value that will appear in the
      outgoing IPv4 TTL). If the next hop link supports parcels but
      configures an MTU that is too small to pass the probe, the router
      resets PMTU (and Check if necessary) then applies parcellation to
      break the probe into multiple smaller sub-parcels that can traverse
      the link while setting the P flag to '1' only for the first
      sub-parcel. If the next hop link supports parcels but configures
      an MTU that is too small to pass a singleton sub-parcel of the
      probe, the router instead MUST drop the probe and return a
      positive Parcel Reply with MTU set to the next hop link MTU.</t>

      <t>The final destination may therefore receive one or more individual
      IP packets or intact Parcel Probes. If the final destination receives
      individual IP packets, it performs any necessary integrity checks,
      applies GRO if possible then delivers the (reconstructed) buffer
      contents to the transport layer which will return one or more segment size
      probe response(s) if necessary. If the final destination receives an
      IPv4 Parcel Probe, it first compares Code with 255 and Check with
      the IPv4 header TTL; if either value differs, the final destination
      MUST drop the probe and return a negative Parcel Reply. Otherwise,
      the final destination then MUST return a positive Parcel Reply and
      deliver the (reconstituted) buffer contents to the transport layer
      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 minimum MTU value for a positive reply or to '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 address as an IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address <xref
      target="RFC4291"/>). The node next copies as much of the leading
      portion of the probe/parcel (beginning with the IP header) as possible
      into the "packet in error" field without causing the entire Parcel
      Reply (beginning with the IPv6 header) to exceed 512 octets in length,
      then calculates the ICMPv6 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 OMNI UDP port number <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 (or an ordinary parcel) the original
      source may therefore receive a UDP/IP encapsulated Parcel Reply (see
      above) and/or one or more transport layer protocol probe replies. If the
      source receives a Parcel Reply, it verifies the checksum and matches
      the enclosed PTB message with an original probe/parcel by examining
      the Identification echoed in the ICMPv6 "packet in error" containing
      the leading portion of the probe. If the Identification 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 parcel path MTU (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 path
      without packetization/parcellation while using any segment size up
      to and including the maximum. If the MTU value is smaller, the value
      represents both the largest whole parcel size and a maximum
      segment size limitation. In both cases, the maximum parcel size
      that can traverse the initial portion of the path may be larger
      than the maximum segment size that can continue to traverse the
      remaining path to the final destination, which can only be
      determined through transport layer protocol probes (i.e., either
      as individual probe packets or as payloads of the Parcel Probes).</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, but may attempt to
      probe again later, e.g., in case the path may have changed.</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 transport layer protocol data compared to an individual IP packet or
      jumbogram. The {TCP/UDP} Checksum header integrity check 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) 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>Each network layer forwarding hop as well as the final destination
      should verify the {TCP,UDP}/IP Checksum at its layer, since an errored
      header could result in mis-delivery. If a network layer protocol entity
      on the path detects an incorrect {TCP,UDP}/IP Checksum it should discard
      the entire IP parcel unless the header(s) can somehow first be repaired
      by lower layers.</t>

      <t>To support the parcel header checksum calculation, the network
      layer uses 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     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                       IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      IPv6 Source Address                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                   IPv6 Destination Address                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Segment Length         |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>where the following fields appear in both pseudo-headers:
          <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
          transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP or UDP.</t>

          <t>Segment Length is the value that appears in the IP
          {Total, Payload} Length field of the prepared parcel.</t>

          <t>Nsegs is the 1-octet value that appears in the Jumbo Payload
          Option field of the same name.</t>

          <t>Jumbo Payload Length is the 3-octet value that appears in
          the Jumbo Payload Option field of the same name.</t>
        </list></t>

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

      <t>When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers a parcel
      body to the network layer, 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
      transport 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 UDP segments. If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket options is
      clear, for UDP the transport layer instead writes the value '0' to disable
      or any non-zero value to enable checksums for specific segments (for
      TCP, the transport layer instead writes any value).</t>

      <t>When the network layer of the source accepts the parcel body from
      the transport layer protocol entity, if the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option
      is set the network 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 network layer instead
      calculates the checksum for each TCP segment (or each UDP 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 network layer of the destination receives a
      parcel from the source, if the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option is set the
      network layer delivers the parcel body to the transport layer protocol
      entity without further processing, and the transport layer is responsible
      for per-segment checksum verification. If the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket
      option is clear, the network 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 either "correct"
      or "incorrect". (For UDP, if the Checksum is '0' the network layer
      unconditionally marks the segment as "correct".) The network layer
      then delivers both the parcel body (beginning with the Integrity block)
      and ancillary data to the transport layer which can then determine
      which segments have correct/incorrect checksums.</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>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jumbo" title="IP Jumbograms">
      <t>True IPv6 jumbograms are distinguished from IPv6 parcels by
      including a zero IPv6 Payload Length and an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
      Option with type '11001110' and length '00000100'. The Jumbo
      Payload option format and all aspects of IPv6 jumbogram processing
      are exactly as specified in <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</t>

      <t>True IPv4 jumbograms are distinguished from IPv4 parcels by
      including a zero IPv4 Total Length and an IPv4 option with type
      '00001011' and length '00000110'. The Jumbo Payload option format
      and all aspects of IPv4 jumbogram processing are exactly the same
      as for IPv6 jumbograms except that the Jumbo Payload length also
      includes the length of the IPv4 header (whereas IPv6 jumbograms
      only include the length of the IPv6 extension headers).</t>

      <t>This specification augments IP jumbograms by also providing a
      Jumbo Path Qualification function using the mechanisms specified
      in <xref target="probe"/>. The function employs a "Jumbo Probe"
      with headers formed the same as for Parcel Probes, but with the
      Nsegs/Jumbo Payload Length fields converted to a single 32-bit
      Jumbo Payload Length field and with the final 4 octets converted
      to a single 32-bit PMTU field. The purpose of the Jumbo Probe is
      to determine whether the entire path from the source to the
      destination is jumbo-capable (i.e., one in which all links
      recognize jumbograms and configure an MTU larger than 65535
      octets) as well as to determine the jumbo path MTU.</t>

      <t>The source prepares a Jumbo Probe by first setting the IP
      {Total, Payload} length field to the special value '1' to
      distinguish this as a Jumbo Probe and not an ordinary parcel
      or jumbogram. The source then sets {Protocol, Next Header} to
      {TCP,UDP}, sets the {TCP,UDP} port to '9' (discard) and either
      includes no octets beyond the {TCP,UDP} header or a single
      discard payload of the desired probe size (note that the
      probe does not include an Integrity Block). The source then
      sets Jumbo Payload Length to the length of the {TCP,UDP}
      header plus the length of the discard payload plus the length
      of the full IP header for IPv4 or the extension headers for IPv6.</t>

      <t>The source next sets the Jumbo Probe PMTU to the full 32-bit MTU
      of the (jumbo-capable) next hop link, (and for IPv4 sets Code to
      255 and Check to the next hop TTL) then calculates the {TCP,UDP}
      Checksum for the probe headers the same as for a parcel and sends
      the probe via the link toward the final destination. At each
      IPv4 forwarding hop, the router examines Code and Check and
      returns a negative "Jumbo Reply" (i.e., prepared the same as a
      Parcel Reply) if either value is incorrect. Otherwise, if the
      next hop link is jumbo-capable the router compares PMTU to the
      next hop link MTU, resets PMTU to the minimum value (and for
      IPv4 sets Check to the next hop TTL) then silently forwards the
      probe to the next hop. If the next hop link is not jumbo-capable,
      the router instead drops the probe and returns a negative
      Jumbo Reply.</t>

      <t>If the Jumbo Probe encounters an OMNI link, the OAL source can
      either drop the probe and return a negative Jumbo Reply or forward
      the probe further toward the OAL destination using adaptation layer
      encapsulation. If the OAL source already knows the OAL path MTU
      for this OAL destination, it can encapsulate and forward the Jumbo
      Probe with PMTU set to the minimum of itself and the known value
      (minus the adaptation layer header size), and without adding any
      padding octets. If the OAL path MTU is unknown, the OAL source
      can instead encapsulate the Jumbo Probe in an adaptation layer
      IPv6 header with a Jumbo Payload option and with NULL padding
      octets added beyond the end of the encapsulated Jumbo Probe to
      form an adaptation layer jumbogram no larger than the minimum
      of PMTU and (2**24 - 1) octets (minus the adaptation layer header
      size). The OAL source then writes this size into the Jumbo Probe
      PMTU field and forwards the newly-created adaptation layer
      jumbogram toward the OAL destination, where it may be lost
      due to a link restriction. If the jumbogram somehow traverses
      the path, the OAL destination then removes the adaptation layer
      encapsulation, discards the padding, then forwards the probe
      onward toward the final destination (with each hop reducing
      PMTU if necessary).</t>

      <t>If the Jumbo Probe reaches the final destination, the final
      destination returns a positive Jumbo Reply with the PMTU set to
      the maximum-sized jumbogram that can transit the path. (Note that
      the jumbo probing process is conducted independently of any parcel
      probing, and the two processes may yield very different results.)</t>

      <t>Note: if the source can in some way determine that a Jumbo
      Probe will be able to successfully transit the path without loss
      due to a size restriction, it can optionally include real {TCP,UDP}
      data instead of discard data. The network layer of the final
      destination then delivers the data to the transport layer and
      returns a Probe Reply the same as discussed above.</t>

      <t>Note: if the OAL path MTU is unknown but the OAL source can in
      some way determine that the path is capable of transiting very large
      jumbograms, it MAY encapsulate a Jumbo Probe to form an adaptation
      layer jumbogram larger than (2**24 - 1) octets with the understanding
      that the time required for the probe to transit the path determines
      an upper bound on acceptable jumbogram sizes.</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>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 below the network or
      adaptation layers such as for transmission of parcels over VPNs
      and/or OMNI link secured spanning trees. Since the network layer
      does not manipulate transport layer segments, 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 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>
    </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" ?>
    </references>

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0863"?>

      <?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="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 accommodate sustained transmission at high
      data rates and devised a TCP Window Scale option to allow window
      sizes up to 2^30. 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 IP parcels are
      strongly encouraged to adopt these measures.</t>

      <t>Since TCP/IP 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/IP parcel out
      into individual packets or sub-parcels, only the first packet/sub-parcel
      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/sub-parcels, the note sets all TCP header
      control bits to '0' as data segment(s). Then, if the original parcel
      contained a Timestamp option, the node 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 layout.</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 IP parcels,
      however, it will often be the case that the "next TCP segment" is
      included in the same (sub-)parcel as the segment that contained
      the urgent pointer such that the urgent pointer can be updated
      immediately.</t>

      <t>Finally, if the parcel contains more than 65535 octets of data
      (i.e., 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="Implications of Extreme L Values">
      <t>The transport layer can specify any L value up to 65535 octets,
      with a minimum of 2 octets for UDP and 5 octets for TCP, while the
      special L value '1' indicates the presence of a Jumbo Probe (see:
      <xref target="jumbo"/>). While acceptable within standard parcel
      parameters, "tiny" L values close to the above minima should
      appear primarily in control segments since transport protocols
      normally exchange data segments that are considerably larger.
      Transport protocols that send small isolated control and/or data
      segments may instead elect to package them as ordinary packets
      while packaging larger data segments as parcels. Transport
      protocol streams therefore often include a mix of parcels
      and ordinary packets.</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 (plus a 2 octet per-segment
      checksum) the transport should specify an L value no larger
      than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24 - 2) = 65441 octets.</t>

      <t>The transport can specify still larger L values up to 65535
      octets, but the resulting parcels might be lost along some paths
      resulting in unpredictable behavior. For example, a parcel with
      L set as large as 65535 might be able to transit paths that can
      pass jumbograms natively but might not be able to transit a
      path that includes non-jumbo links. The transport layer should
      therefore carefully consider the benefits of constructing parcels
      with L values larger than the recommended maximum due to high
      risk of loss compared with only modest incremental performance
      benefits.</t>

      <t>Parcels that include L values larger than the recommended
      maximum and with a maximum number of included segments could
      also cause a parcel to exceed 16,777,215 (2**24 - 1) octets
      in total length. Since the parcel Jumbo Payload length field
      is limited to 24 bits, however, the largest possible parcel
      is also limited by this size. See also the above risk/benefit
      analysis for parcels that include L values larger than the
      recommended maximum.</t>
    </section>

    <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 transport 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 higher 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 higher layers where the individual segment checksums
      will detect and discard any damaged data not repaired by the link
      and/or adaptation 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
      parcellation is needed to fit within the interface MTU. For applications
      such as the Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol <xref
      target="RFC9171"/>, this will allow transfer of entire large protocol
      objects (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>
