<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-templin-6man-parcels-03"
     ipr="trust200902" updates="2675,9268">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Parcels and AJs">IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)</title>

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

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

          <city>Seattle</city>

          <region>WA</region>

          <code>98124</code>

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

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

    <date day="15" month="December" year="2023"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

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

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>IPv6 packets <xref target="RFC8200"/> contain a single unit of transport
      layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Transport layer protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      <xref target="RFC9293"/> and reliable transport protocol users of the User
      Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref target="RFC0768"/> (including QUIC
      <xref target="RFC9000"/>, LTP <xref target="RFC5326"/> and others)
      prepare data units known as segments which the network layer packages
      into individual IPv6 packets each containing only a single segment. This
      document presents a new construct known as an "IPv6 Parcel" which permits
      a single packet to include multiple segments. The parcel is essentially
      a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers appearing
      only once but with possibly multiple segments included.</t>

      <t>Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a data
      buffer (or buffer chain) containing at most 64 consecutive transport
      layer protocol segments that can be broken out into individual packets
      or smaller sub-parcels as necessary. All segments except the
      final one must be equal in length and no larger than 65535 octets,
      while the final segment must be no larger than the others. The
      transport layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s),
      number of segments and non-final segment size to the network
      layer. The network layer next appends per-segment headers and
      trailers, merges the segments into the parcel body, appends a
      single {TCP,UDP} header and finally appends a single IPv6 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 node with
      a next hop link that does not support parcels, a parcel-capable
      link with a size restriction, or an ingress Overlay Multilink
      Network (OMNI) Interface <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>
      connection to an OMNI link that spans intermediate Internetworks.
      In the first case, the original source or next hop router applies
      packetization to break the parcel into individual IPv6 packets.
      In the second case, the node applies network layer parcellation
      to form smaller sub-parcels. In the final case, the OMNI interface
      applies adaptation layer parcellation to form still smaller
      sub-parcels, then applies adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulation
      and fragmentation if necessary. The node then forwards the
      resulting packets/parcels/fragments to the next hop.</t>

      <t>Following IPv6 reassembly if necessary, an egress OMNI
      interface applies adaptation layer reunification if necessary
      to merge multiple sub-parcels into a minimum number of larger
      (sub-)parcels then delivers them to the network layer which either
      processes them locally or forwards them via the next hop link
      toward the final destination. The final destination can then apply
      network layer (parcel-based) reunification or (packet-based)
      restoration if necessary to deliver a minimum number of larger
      (sub-)parcels to the transport layer. Reordering, loss or corruption
      of individual segments within the network is therefore possible, but
      most importantly the parcels delivered to the final destination's
      transport layer should be the largest practical size for best
      performance, and loss or receipt of individual segments (rather
      than parcel size) determines the retransmission unit.</t>

      <t>This document further introduces an Advanced Jumbo (AJ) service
      that provides essential extensions beyond the basic IPv6 jumbogram
      service defined in <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs provide end systems
      and intermediate systems with a more robust service when transmission
      of singleton segments of all sizes ranging from very small to very
      large is necessary.</t>

      <t>The following sections discuss rationale for creating and shipping
      parcels and AJs as well as actual protocol constructs and procedures
      involved. Parcels and AJs provide essential building blocks for
      improved performance, efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger
      Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs). A new Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN)
      link service model for parcels and AJs further supports delay/disruption
      tolerance especially suited for air/land/sea/space mobility applications.
      These services should inspire future innovation in applications, transport
      protocols, operating systems, network equipment and data links in ways
      that promise to transform the Internet 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 "IPv6 parcel" is simply a collection of at
      most 64 transport layer protocol segments wrapped in an efficient
      package for transmission and delivery as a "packet-of-packets",
      with each segment including its own end-to-end integrity checks.
      Each segment may be up to 65535 octets in length, and all non-final
      segments must be equal in length while the final segment may be
      smaller. IPv6 parcels are distinguished from ordinary packets and
      various jumbogram types through the constructs specified in this
      document.</t>

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

      <t>The term "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" refers to a new type of IPv6
      jumbogram modeled from the basic IPv6 jumbogram construct defined
      in <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs include a 32-bit Jumbo Payload
      Length field and a single transport layer protocol segment the
      same as for basic IPv6 jumbograms, but are differentiated from
      parcels and other jumbogram types by including an "Advanced Jumbo
      Type" value in the IPv6 Payload Length field plus end-to-end
      segment integrity checks the same as for parcels. Unlike basic IPv6
      jumbograms which are always 64KB or larger, AJs can range in size
      from as small as the headers plus a minimal or even null payload
      to as large as 2**32 octets minus headers.</t>

      <t>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 IPv6 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 overhead savings advantage
      made possible only by parcels.</t>

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

      <t>The term Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) is used consistently with
      its application in widely deployed Internetworking services. Parcels
      that employ end-to-end CRC checks use the CRC32C <xref target=
      "RFC3385"/> or CRC64E <xref target="ECMA-182"/> standards according
      to non-final segment length "L" (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).
      AJs that employ end-to-end CRC checks include either a CRC or message
      digest calculated according to the MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1
      <xref target="RFC3174"/> or US Secure Hash <xref target="RFC6234"/>
      algorithms. In all cases, the CRC or message digest is appended as a
      per-segment trailer arranged for transmission in network byte order
      per standard Internetworking conventions.</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 not associated with a layer number itself and is simply known
      as "the layer below L3 but above L2". A network interface is a node's
      attachment to a link (via L2), and an OMNI interface is therefore
      a node's attachment to an OMNI link (via the adaptation layer).</t>

      <t> The term "parcel/AJ-capable link/path" refers to paths that transit
      interfaces to adaptation layer and/or link layer media (either physical
      or virtual) capable of transiting {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packets that employ the
      parcel/AJ constructs specified in this document. The source and each
      router in the path has a "next hop link" that forwards parcels/AJs
      toward the final destination, while each router and the final destination
      has a "previous hop link" that accepts en route parcels/AJs. Each next
      hop link must be capable of forwarding parcels/AJs (after first applying
      parcellation if necessary) with segment lengths no larger than can transit
      the link. Currently only the OMNI link satisfies these properties, while
      other link types that support parcels/AJs should soon follow.</t>

      <t>The term "5-tuple" refers to a transport layer protocol entity
      identifier that includes the network layer (source address,
      destination address, source port, destination port, protocol number).
      The term "4-tuple" refers to  a network layer parcel entity
      identifier that includes the adaptation layer (source address,
      destination address, Parcel ID, Identification).</t>

      <t>The Internetworking term "Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)" is
      widely understood to mean the largest packet size that can transit
      a single link ("link MTU") or an entire path ("path MTU") without
      requiring network layer fragmentation. If the MTU value returned
      during parcel path qualification is larger than 65535 (plus the
      length of the parcel headers), it determines the maximum-sized
      parcel/AJ that can transit the link/path without requiring a
      router to perform packetization/parcellation. If the MTU is no
      larger than 65535, the value instead determines the "Maximum Segment
      Size (MSS)" for the leading portion of the path up to a router that
      cannot forward the parcel further. (Note that this size may still
      be larger than the MSS that can transit the remainder of the path
      to the final destination, which can only be determined through
      explicit MSS probing.)</t>

      <t>The terms "packetization" and "restoration" refer to a network
      layer process in which the original source or a router on the path
      breaks a parcel out into individual IPv6 packets that can transit
      the remainder of the path without loss due to a size restriction.
      The final destination then restores the combined packet contents
      into a parcel before delivery to the transport layer. In current
      practice, packetization/restoration can be considered as functional
      equivalents to the well-known Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload
      (GSO/GRO) services.</t> 

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

      <t>The terms "fragmentation" and "reassembly" follow exactly from
      their definitions in the IPv6 <xref target="RFC8200"/> standard.
      In particular, OMNI interfaces support IPv6 encapsulation and
      fragmentation as an adaptation layer process that can transit
      packet/parcel/AJs sizes that exceed the underlying Internetwork
      path MTU. OMNI interface fragmentation/reassembly occurs at a
      lower layer of the protocol stack than restoration and/or
      reunification and therefore provides a complimentary service.
      Note that IPv6 parcels and AJs are not eligible for direct
      fragmentation and reassembly at the network layer but become
      eligible for adaptation layer fragmentation and reassembly
      following OMNI IPv6 encapsulation.</t>

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

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

    <section anchor="reqs" title="Requirements">
      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs are derived from the basic jumbogram
      specification found in <xref target="RFC2675"/>, but the
      specifications in this document take precedence whenever they
      differ from the basic requirements. Most notably, IPv6 parcels
      and AJs use one of either the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU <xref
      target="RFC9268"/> or basic IPv6 jumbogram <xref target=
      "RFC2675"/> Hop-by-Hop option. (The former is used during
      path probing and initial parcel/AJ transmissions while the
      latter is used for more efficient transmissions following
      path qualification.)</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs are further permitted to encode values other
      than 0 in the IPv6 Payload length field and they are not limited
      only to packet sizes that exceed 65535 octets. (Instead, parcels
      can be as small as the packet headers plus a singleton segment
      with its integrity checks while AJs can be as small as the
      headers plus a NULL payload.)</t>

      <t>The same as for standard jumbograms, IPv6 parcels and AJs
      are not eligible for direct network layer IPv6 fragmentation and
      reassembly although they may become eligible for adaptation layer
      fragmentation and reassembly following OMNI IPv6 encapsulation.
      IPv6 parcels and AJs therefore SHOULD NOT include IPv6 (Extended)
      Fragment Headers, and implementation MUST silently ignore any
      IPv6 (Extended) Fragment Headers in IPv6 parcels and AJs.</t>

      <t>For further Hop-by-Hop option considerations, see: <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing"/>. For IPv6 extension
      header limits, see: <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits"/>.</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 (virtual) 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 IPv6 fragmentation is invoked, and LTP still
      follows this profile today. Moreover, LTP shows this (single-segment)
      performance increase profile extending to the largest possible segment
      size which suggests that additional performance gains are possible
      using (multi-segment) parcels or AJs that approach or even exceed
      65535 octets in total length.</t>

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

      <t>A limiting consideration for sending large packets is that they are
      often lost at links with MTU restrictions, and the resulting Packet Too
      Big (PTB) messages <xref target="RFC4443"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> may
      be lost somewhere in the return path to the original source. This path
      MTU "black hole" condition can 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 segment sizes as large as 65535 octets (minus
      headers) while parcels that carry multiple segments may themselves
      be significantly larger. (Transport layer protocols can also use AJs
      to transit even larger singleton segments.) Parcels allow the receiving
      transport layer protocol entity to process multiple segments in parallel
      instead of one at a time per existing practices. Parcels therefore support
      improvements in performance, integrity and efficiency for the original
      source, final destination and networked path as a whole. This is true
      even if the network and lower layers need to apply packetization/restoration,
      parcellation/reunification 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="linksrv" title="A Delay-Tolerant (DTN) Internetworking Link Model">
      <t>The classic Internetworking link service model requires each link
      in the path to apply a link-layer frame integrity check often termed a
      "Frame Check Sequence (FCS)". The link near-end calculates and appends
      an FCS trailer to each packet pending transmission, and the link far-end
      verifies the FCS upon packet reception. If verification fails, the link
      far-end unconditionally discards the packet. This process is repeated
      for each link in the path so that only packets that pass all link-layer
      checks are delivered to the final destination.</t>

      <t>While the classic link model has contributed to the unparalleled
      success of terrestrial Internetworks (including the global public
      Internet), new uses in which significant delays or disruptions can
      occur are not as well supported. For example, a path that contains
      multiple links with higher bit error rates may be unable to pass an
      acceptable percentage of packets since loss due to link errors can
      occur at any hop. Moreover, packets that incur errors at an
      intermediate link but somehow pass the link integrity check will
      be forwarded by all remaining links in the path leaving only the
      final destination's Internet checksum as a last resort integrity
      check. Advanced error detection and correction services not
      typically associated with packets are therefore necessary;
      especially with the advent of space-domain and wireless
      Internetworking, long delays and significant disruptions
      are often intolerant of retransmissions. This specification
      therefore introduces a new Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN)
      link model.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs that engage this DTN link model include an
      end-to-end Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) or message digest with
      each segment that is calculated and inserted by the original source
      and verified by the final destination. For each such parcel or AJ
      admitted into a parcel/AJ-capable link, the link near-end applies
      its standard link-layer FCS upon transmission which the link far-end
      then verifies upon reception. Instead of unconditionally discarding
      frames with link errors, however, the link far-end delivers all
      parcel/AJ frames that engage the DTN link model to upper layers.
      If a link error was detected, the link far-end also sets a "CRC
      error" flag in the parcel/AJ header (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).</t>

      <t>Each link along the path simply discards any ordinary packets,
      parcels or AJs that observe the classic link model if a link error
      is detected according to current practice. For IPv6 parcels and
      AJs that incur link errors under the DTN link model, however,
      each intermediate hop SHOULD and the final destination MUST first
      verify the parcel/AJ header Checksum to protect against mis-delivery.
      Each intermediate hop then unconditionally forwards the parcel/AJ
      to the next hop even though it may include link errors.</t>

      <t>IPv6 Parcel/AJ segments may therefore acquire cumulative
      link errors along the path, but the parcel/AJ error bit plus
      per segment end-to-end CRCs and/or Internet checksums support
      final destination integrity checking. The final destination
      in turn delivers each segment to the local transport layer
      along with an error flag that is set if an end-to-end CRC
      or Internet checksum error was detected (otherwise the flag
      is cleared). The error flag is then taken under advisement
      by the transport layer, which should employ transport or
      higher-layer integrity checks to guide corrective actions.</t>

      <t>The ubiquitous 1500 octet link MTU had its origins in the very
      earliest deployments of 10Mbps Ethernet technologies beginning in the
      early 1980's, however modern wired-line link data rates of 1Gbps are
      now typical for end user devices such as laptop computers while much
      higher rates of 10Gbps, 100Gbps or even more commonly occur for data
      center servers. At these data rates, the serialization delays range from
      1200usec at 10Mbps to only .12usec at 100Gbps <xref target="ETHERMTU"/>.
      This suggests that the legacy 1500 MTU may be too small by multiple
      orders of magnitude for many well-connected data centers, wide-area
      wired-line networked paths or even for deep space communications over
      optical links. For these cases, larger parcels and AJs present
      performance maximization constructs that support larger transport
      layer segment sizes.</t>

      <t>While data centers, Internetworking backbones and deep space
      networks are often connected through robust fixed link services,
      the Internet edge is rapidly evolving from to a much more mobile
      environment where 4G/5G (and beyond) cellular services and WiFi
      radios connect a growing majority of end user systems. Although
      some wireless edge networks and mobile ad-hoc networks support
      considerable data rates, more typical rates with wireless signal
      disruption and link errors suggest that limiting channel contention
      by configuring more conservative MTU levels is often prudent. Even
      in such environments, a mixed link model with error-tolerant data
      sent in DTN parcels/AJs and error-intolerant data sent in classic
      packet/parcel/AJ constructs may present a more balanced profile.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs therefore provide a revolutionary
      advancement for delay/disruption tolerance in air/land/sea/space
      mobile Internetworking applications. As the Internet continues to
      evolve from its more stable fixed terrestrial network origins to
      one where more and more nodes operate in the mobile edge, this
      new link service model relocates error detection and correction
      responsibilities from intermediate systems to the end systems
      that are uniquely capable of take corrective actions.</t>

      <t>Note: IPv6 parcels and AJs may already be compatible with
      widely-deployed link types such as 1/10/100-Gbps Ethernet.
      Each Ethernet frame is identified by a preamble followed by a
      Start Frame Delimiter (SFD) followed by the frame data itself
      followed by the FCS and finally an Inter Packet Gap (IPG). Since
      no length field is included, however, the frame can theoretically
      extend as long as necessary for transmission of IPv6 parcels and
      AJs that are much larger than the typical 1500 octet Ethernet
      MTU as long as the time duration on the link media is properly
      bounded. Widely-deployed links may therefore already include
      all of the necessary features to natively support large parcels
      and AJs with no additional extensions, while operating systems
      may need to be modified to post larger receive buffers.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="parcels" title="IPv6 Parcel Formation">
      <t>A transport protocol entity identified by its 5-tuple
      forms a parcel body by preparing a data buffer (or buffer chain)
      containing at most 64 transport layer protocol segments, with each
      TCP segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence Number header. Each
      segment plus Sequence Number (for TCP) is further preceded by a
      2-octet Internet Checksum header and followed by a 0/4/8-octet
      CRC trailer. All non-final segments MUST be equal in length
      while the final segment MUST NOT be larger and MAY be smaller.
      The number of non-final segments is represented as J; the total
      number of segments is therefore (J + 1).</t>

      <t>The non-final segment size L is set to a 16-bit value that
      MUST be no smaller than 256 octets and SHOULD be no larger than
      65535 octets minus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options),
      minus the length of the IPv6 header (plus extensions), minus 2
      octets for the Checksum header minus 4 octets for the Sequence
      Number (for TCP) minus 0/4/8 octets for the CRC trailer (see:
      <xref target="borderline"/>). The final segment length K
      MUST NOT be larger than L but MAY be smaller. 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 when there are sufficient segments of a
      large enough size.</t>

      <t>If the next hop link is not parcel capable, the network layer
      performs packetization to package each segment as an individual IPv6
      packet as discussed in <xref target="xmit-singleton"/>. If the next
      hop link is parcel capable, the network layer instead completes the
      parcel by appending a single full {TCP,UDP} header (plus options)
      and a single full IPv6 header (plus extensions). The network layer
      finally includes a specially-formatted Parcel Payload option as an
      extension to the IPv6 header of each parcel prior to transmission
      over a network interface.</t>

      <t>The Parcel Payload option format for IPv6 appears as shown
      in <xref target="parcel-fmt"/>:

      <figure anchor="parcel-fmt"
              title="IPv6 Parcel Payload Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |C|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-                  Identification                 -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The network layer includes the Parcel Payload option as an
      IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option with Option Type set to '0x30' and
      Opt Data Len set to 14. The length also distinguishes this
      type from its use as the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop
      Option <xref target="RFC9268"/>. The network layer then sets
      the IPv6 header Payload Length field to L and sets Parcel
      Payload Length to a 3-octet value M that encodes the length
      of the IPv6 extension headers plus the length of the {TCP,UDP}
      header plus the combined length of all concatenated segments
      with their Checksum and sequence number (for TCP) headers
      and CRC trailers.</t>  

      <t>The network layer next sets Index to an ordinal segment
      "Parcel Index" value between 0 and 63, sets the "(C)RC"
      flag to 1 if CRC trailers are used (otherwise 0) and sets
      the "More (S)egments" flag to 1 for non-final sub-parcels or
      0 for the final (sub-)parcel. (Note that non-zero Index values
      identify the initial segment index in non-first sub-parcels
      of a larger original parcel while the value 0 denotes the
      first (sub-)parcel.) The network layer finally includes an
      8-octet Identification, then sets Code to 255 and sets Check
      to the same value that will appear in the IPv6 header Hop
      Limit field on transmission. These values provide hop-by-hop
      assurance that previous hops correctly implement the parcel
      protocol without applying legacy IPv6 option processing per
      <xref target="RFC9268"/>.</t>

      <t>Following this transport and network layer processing,
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 parcels therefore have the structures shown in
      <xref target="struct"/>:</t> <t><figure anchor="struct"
              title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Structure">
          <artwork><![CDATA[       TCP/IPv6 Parcel Structure          UDP/IPv6 Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   IPv6 Hdr plus extensions   ~   ~   IPv6 Hdr plus extensions   ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum 0 followed by    |   |    Checksum 0 followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number 0 followed  ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment 0 (L octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~    
   |      followed by CRC 0       |   |            CRC 0             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum 1 followed by    |   |    Checksum 1 followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number 1 followed  ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment 1 (L octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~
   |      followed by CRC 1       |   |            CRC 1             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   ~         More Segments        ~   ~         More Segments        ~
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum J followed by    |   |    Checksum J followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number J followed  ~   ~     Segment J (K octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment J (K octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~
   |      followed by CRC J       |   |            CRC J             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

    <section anchor="tcp-parcel" title="TCP Parcels">
      <t>A TCP Parcel is a parcel that includes an IPv6 header
      plus extensions with a Parcel Payload option formed as shown in
      <xref target="parcels"/> with Parcel Payload Length encoding
      a value no larger than 16,777,215 (2**24 - 1) octets. The IPv6
      header plus extensions is then followed by a TCP header plus
      options (20 or more octets) followed by (J + 1) consecutive
      segments that each include a 2-octet Internet Checksum plus
      4-octet per-segment Sequence Number header and 4/8-octet CRC
      trailer when C=1 (otherwise, no CRC trailer). The TCP header
      Sequence Number is set to 0, each non-final segment is L octets
      in length and the final segment is K octets in length. The value
      L is encoded in the IPv6 header Payload Length field while the
      overall length of the parcel is determined by the Parcel
      Payload Length M.</t>

      <t>The source prepares TCP Parcels in an alternative adaptation of
      TCP jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/>. The source calculates a
      checksum of the TCP header plus IPv6 pseudo-header only (see: <xref
      target="integrity"/>). The source then writes the exact calculated
      value in the TCP header Checksum field (i.e., without converting
      calculated 0 values to '0xffff').</t>

      <t>The source next calculates the Internet checksum for each segment
      independently beginning with the Sequence Number header and extending
      over the length of the segment, then writes the value into the 2-octet
      Checksum header. When C=1, the source then calculates the CRC beginning
      with the Checksum header and extending over both the Sequence Number
      header and the length of the segment, then writes the value into the
      4/8-octet CRC trailer.</t>

      <t>Note: The parcel TCP header Source Port, Destination Port and
      (per-segment) Sequence Number fields apply to each parcel segment,
      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 IPv6 Parcel that includes an IPv6 header plus
      extensions with a Parcel Payload option formed as shown in <xref
      target="parcels"/> with Parcel Payload Length encoding a value
      no larger than 16,777,215 (2**24 - 1) octets. The IPv6 header plus
      extensions is then followed by an 8-octet UDP header followed by
      (J + 1) transport layer segments with their Checksum headers and
      CRCs trailers. Each segment must begin with a transport-specific
      start delimiter (e.g., a segment identifier, a sequence number,
      etc.) included by the transport layer user of UDP. The length of
      the first segment L is encoded in the IPv6 Payload Length
      field while the overall length of the parcel is determined by
      the Parcel Payload Length M as above.</t>

      <t>The source prepares UDP Parcels in an alternative adaptation of
      UDP jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/>. The source first sets the UDP
      header length field to 0, then calculates the checksum of the UDP header
      plus IPv6 pseudo-header (see: <xref target="integrity"/>) and writes the
      exact calculated value into the UDP header Checksum field (i.e.,
      without converting calculated 0 values to '0xffff'). If UDP checksums
      are enabled, the source also calculates a separate checksum for each
      segment while writing the values into the corresponding per-segment
      Checksum header with calculated 0 values converted to '0xffff' (if
      UDP checksums are disabled, the source instead writes the value 0).
      When C=1, the source then calculates the CRC over each segment
      beginning with the segment Checksum field and writes the value
      into the 4/8-octet CRC trailer.</t>

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

    <section anchor="j-k-calc" title="Calculating J and K">
      <t>The parcel source unambiguously encodes the values L and M in
      the corresponding header fields as specified above. The values J
      and K are not encoded in header fields and must therefore be
      calculated by intermediate and final destination nodes as follows:

<figure anchor="j-k-alg" title="Calculating J and K">
      <artwork><![CDATA[
       /* L is non-final segment length (256 or greater);
          M is parcel payload length;
          H is length of {TCP,UDP} header plus IPv6 extensions;
          T is parcel payload length minus headers;
          C is combined length of per-segment header/trailer;
          integer arithmetic assumed.*/

       if ((L < 256) || ((T = (M - H)) <= 0))
           drop parcel;

       if ((J = (T / (L + C))) > 64)
           drop parcel;

       if ((K = (T % (L + C))) == 0) {
           J--; K = L;
       } else {
           if ((J > 63) || ((K -= C) <= 0))
               drop parcel;
       }]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>Note: from the above calculations, a minimal parcel is one
      that sets L to at least 256 and includes at least one segment no
      larger than L along with its per-segment header(s) and trailer.
      In addition, all parcels set L to at most 65535 and contain at
      most 64 segments along with their corresponding headers/trailers.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit" title="Transmission of IPv6 Parcels">
      <t>When the network layer of the source assembles a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      parcel it fully populates all IPv6 header fields including the source
      address, destination address and Parcel Payload option as above.
      The source also sets IPv6 Payload Length to L (between 256 and
      65535) to distinguish the parcel from other jumbogram types
      (see: <xref target="jumbo"/>).</t>

      <t>The network layer of the source also maintains a randomly-
      initialized 8-octet (64-bit) Identification value for each
      destination. For each packet, parcel or AJ transmission, the
      source sets the Identification to the current cached value for
      this destination and increments the cached value by 1 (modulo
      2**64) for each successive transmission. (The source can then
      reset the cached value to a new random number when necessary,
      e.g., to maintain an unpredictable profile.) For each parcel
      transmission, the source includes the Identification value in
      the IPv6 Parcel Payload Option.</t>

      <t>The network layer of the source finally presents the parcel to
      an interface for transmission to the next hop. For ordinary interface
      attachments to parcel-capable links, the source simply admits each
      parcel into the interface the same as for any IPv6 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. Note that any node in the path that
      does not recognize the parcel construct may either drop it and return
      an ICMP Parameter Problem message or (erroneously) attempt to
      forward it as an ordinary packet.</t>

      <t>Most importantly, each parcel-capable link in the path forwards
      parcels with C=1 (as well as AJs that include a non-NULL trailer)
      even if link errors were detected since each segment includes an
      end-to-end CRC integrity check. This ensures that the vast majority
      of coherent data is delivered to the final destination instead of
      being discarded along with a minor amount of corrupted data at an
      intermediate hop. When the link far end receives a parcel with
      C=1 (or an AJ that includes a non-NULL trailer) it sets a "CRC
      error" flag in the parcel/AJ header if a link error was detected
      before forwarding to the next hop (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).</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 IPv6 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 restoration 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 with each
      containing the same Identification value and with the S flag set
      appropriately. The final destination can then apply reunification
      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 IPv6 packets or smaller sub-parcels entail the
      same considerations as for a router on the path that invokes
      these processes as discussed in the following subsections.</t>

      <t>Parcel probes that test the forward path's ability to pass parcels
      set a Path MTU (PMTU field) to a non-zero value as discussed in <xref
      target="probe"/>. Each router in the path then rewrites PMTU in a
      similar fashion as for <xref target="RFC9268"/>.
      Specifically, 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. The fact that the parcel transited a previous hop
      link provides sufficient evidence of forward progress (since parcel
      path MTU determination is unidirectional in the forward path only),
      but 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 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 parcel path probing.)</t>

      <t>When a router receives a parcel it first compares Code with 255
      and Check with the IPv6 header Hop Limit; if either value differs,
      the router drops the parcel and returns a negative Jumbo Report (see:
      <xref target="report"/>) subject to rate limiting. (Note that the
      parcel may also have been truncated in length by a previous-hop router
      that does not recognize the construct.) For all other intact parcels,
      the router next compares the value L with the next hop link MTU. If the
      next hop link is parcel capable but configures an MTU too small to admit
      a parcel with a single segment of length L the router returns a positive
      Jumbo Report (subject to rate limiting) with MTU set to the next hop link
      MTU. If the next hop link is not parcel capable and configures an MTU
      too small to pass an individual IPv6 packet with a single segment of
      length L the router instead returns a positive Parcel Report (subject
      to rate limiting) with MTU set to the next hop link MTU. If the next
      hop link is parcel capable the router MUST reset Check to the same
      value that would appear in the IPv6 header Hop Limit field upon
      transmission 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 IPv6 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 follows 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 packets over links that do not
      support parcels, or for transmission of (sub-)parcels larger than the
      next-hop link MTU, the source or router (i.e., the node) engages GSO
      to perform packetization. The node first determines whether an
      individual packet with segment of length L can fit within the next
      hop link/path MTU. If an individual packet would be too large (and
      if source fragmentation is not an option), the node drops the parcel
      and returns a positive Parcel Report message (subject to rate limiting)
      with MTU set to the next hop link/path MTU and with the leading portion
      of the parcel beginning with the IPv6 header as the "packet in error".</t>

      <t>If an individual packet can be accommodated, the node next removes
      the Parcel Payload option and caches the per-segment Checksum header
      values (and for TCP also caches the Sequence Numbers). If C=1, then
      node then verifies the CRCs of each segment(i) (for i = 0 thru j)
      and discards any segment(i)'s with incorrect CRCs. The node then
      copies the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers followed by segment (i) (i.e.,
      while discarding the per-segment Checksum, Sequence Number and CRC
      fields) into as many as 'j' individual packets ("packet(i)"). Each
      such packet(i) will be subject to the independent CRC verifications
      of each remaining link in the path.</t>

      <t>For each 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 IPv6 Payload
      Length for each packet(i) based on the length of segment(i)
      according to <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>For each packet(i), the node then inserts a Parcel Segment
      option for TCP <xref target="RFC9293"/> or UDP <xref target=
      "I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"/>. The {TCP,UDP} option is
      formatted as shown in <xref target="new-tcp"/>:</t>

        <t><figure anchor="new-tcp" title="Parcel Segment Option">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Index  |R|S|            Parcel Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-                 Identification                  -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The node includes the Parcel Segment option in the {TCP,UDP}
      header of each packet(i). The node sets Kind to 253 for TCP
      <xref target= "RFC6994"/><xref target="RFC9293"/> or 127 for
      UDP <xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"/>, then sets
      Length to 16 and ExID to TBD1 (see: IANA Considerations). The
      node next sets Index to 'i', sets R to 0 and sets S to 1 for
      non-final packet(i)'s or to 0 for the final packet(i). The
      node finally includes the Parcel Payload Length and
      Identification values found in the original parcel header.</t>

      <t>For each TCP/IPv6 packet, the node next sets Payload Length
      then calculates/sets the checksum for the packet according to
      <xref target="RFC9293"/>. For each UDP/IPv6 packet, the node instead
      sets the Payload Length and UDP length fields then calculates/sets
      the checksum according to <xref target="RFC0768"/>. The node reuses
      the cached checksum value for each segment in the checksum
      calculation process. The node first calculates the Internet
      checksum over the new packet {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers then adds
      the cached segment checksum value. For TCP, the node finally
      writes the cached Sequence Number value for each segment into
      the TCP Sequence Number field which initially encoded the
      value 0 (note that this permits the node to use the cached
      segment checksum without having to recalculate). For UDP, if
      a per-segment Checksum was 0 the node instead writes the
      value 0 in the Checksum field of the corresponding UDP/IPv6
      packet.</t>

      <t>For each IPv6 packet, the node then sets both the Fragment
      Offset field and (M)ore fragments flag to 0 and forwards
      each packet to the next hop.</t>

      <t>Note: Packets resulting from packetization may be too large
      to transit the remaining path to the final destination, such that
      a router may drop the packet(s) and possibly also return
      an ordinary ICMP PTB message. Since these messages cannot be
      authenticated or may be lost on the return path, the original
      source should take care in setting a segment size larger than
      the known path MTU unless as part of an active probing service.</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 intermediate system (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 a singleton sub-parcel would be too large,
      the node returns a positive Jumbo Report message (subject to rate limiting)
      with MTU set to the next hop link MTU and containing the leading portion of
      the parcel beginning with the IPv6 header, then performs packetization as
      discussed in <xref target="xmit-singleton"/>. Otherwise, the node employs
      network layer parcellation to break the original parcel into smaller groups
      of segments that can traverse the path as whole (sub-)parcels. The node
      first determines 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 each sub-parcel can contain 3 segments of length L, it creates
      sub-parcels with the first containing Segments 0-2, the second containing
      3-5, the third containing 6-8, etc., and with the final containing any
      remaining Segments (where each segment includes its Checksum header
      and when C=1 also the CRC trailer from the original (sub-)parcel).</t>

      <t>If the original parcel's Parcel Payload option has S set to 0, the
      node then 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 original parcel has
      S set to 1, the node instead sets S to 1 in all resulting sub-parcels
      including the last. The node next sets the Index field to the value
      'i' which is the ordinal number of the first segment included in each
      sub-parcel. (In the above example, the first sub-parcel sets Index
      to 0, the second sets Index to 3, the third sets Index to 6, etc.).
      If another router further down the path toward the final destination
      forwards the sub-parcel(s) over a link that configures a smaller MTU,
      the router may break it into even smaller sub-parcels each with Index
      set to the ordinal number of the first segment included.</t>

      <t>The node next appends identical {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers
      (including the Parcel Payload option plus any other extensions)
      to each sub-parcel while resetting Index, S, Payload Length (L)
      and Parcel Payload Length (M) in each as above. 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 finally sets PMTU to
      the next hop link MTU then forwards each (sub-)parcel to the
      parcel-capable next hop.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-omni" title="OMNI Interface Parcellation and Reunification">
      <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 intermediate node or a Last Hop Segment (LHS) OAL
      destination. OMNI interface parcellation and reunification
      procedures are specified in detail in the remainder of this
      section, while parcel encapsulation and fragmentation procedures
      are specified in <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>.</t>

      <t>When the OAL source forwards a parcel (whether generated
      by a local application or forwarded over a network path that
      transited one or more parcel-capable links), it first assigns a
      monotonically-incrementing (modulo 64) adaptation layer Parcel ID
      (note that this value differs from the (Parcel) Index encoded in
      the Parcel Payload option). If the parcel is larger than the OAL
      maximum segment size of 65535 octets, the OAL source next employs
      parcellation to break the parcel into sub-parcels the same as for
      the above network layer procedures. This includes re-setting the
      Index, S, Payload Length (L) and Parcel Payload Length (M) fields
      in each sub-parcel the same as specified in <xref target=
      "xmit-subparcels"/>.</t>
      
      <t>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 while writing
      the Parcel ID into the OAL IPv6 Extended Fragment Header. The OAL
      source then performs OAL fragmentation if necessary and finally
      forwards each fragment to the next OAL hop toward the OAL destination.
      (During encapsulation, the OAL source examines the Parcel 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, it retains
      them along with their Parcel IDs and Identifications for a short
      time to support reunification with peer sub-parcels of the
      same original (sub-)parcel identified by the 4-tuple information
      corresponding to the OAL source. This reunification entails the
      concatenation of Checksums/Segments included in sub-parcels with
      the same Parcel ID and with Identification values within modulo-64
      of one another to create a larger sub-parcel possibly even as large
      as the entire original parcel. The OAL destination concatenates
      the segments plus their checksums (and when C=1 also CRCs) for
      each sub-parcel in ascending Identification value order, while
      ensuring that any sub-parcel with TCP control bits set appears
      as the first concatenated element in a reunified larger parcel
      and any sub-parcel with S flag set to 0 appears as the final
      concatenation. The OAL destination then sets S to 0 in the
      reunified (sub-)parcel 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}/IPv6 header
      plus extensions to each reunified sub-parcel while resetting Index,
      S, Payload Length (L) and Parcel Payload Length (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 reunified (sub-)parcel
      with the TCP options including the union of the TCP options of all
      reunified sub-parcels. The OAL destination then resets the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 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. If the OAL destination is not the
      final destination, it instead forwards each sub-parcel toward the
      final destination the same as for an ordinary IPv6 packet.</t>

      <t>Note: Adaptation layer parcellation over OMNI links occurs only
      at the OAL source while adaptation layer reunification occurs only
      at the OAL destination (intermediate OAL nodes do not engage in the
      parcellation/reunification processes). The OAL destination should
      retain sub-parcels in the reunification buffer only for a short
      time (e.g., 1 second) or until all sub-parcels of the original
      parcel have arrived. The OAL destination then delivers full and/or
      incomplete reunifications to the network layer (in cases where
      loss and/or delayed arrival interfere with full reunification).</t>

      <t>Note: OMNI interface parcellation and reunification is an OAL
      process based on the adaptation layer 4-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>

      <t>Note: Some implementations may encounter difficulty in applying
      adaptation layer reunification for sub-parcels that have already
      incurred lower layer fragmentation and reassembly (e.g., due to
      network kernel buffer structure limitations). In that case, the
      adaptation layer can either linearize each sub-parcel before
      applying reunification or deliver incomplete reunifications or
      even individual sub-parcels to upper layers.</t>
    </section>

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

      <t>When the original source or a router on the path opens a parcel
      and forwards its contents as smaller sub-parcels, these sub-parcels
      will arrive at the final destination which can hold them in a
      reunification buffer for a short time or until all sub-parcels
      have arrived. The 5-tuple information plus the Index/C/S and
      Identification values provide sufficient context for
      reunification.</t>

      <t>In both the restoration and reunification cases, the final
      destination concatenates segments according to ascending Index
      and/or Identification numbers to preserve segment ordering even
      if a small degree of reordering and/or loss may have occurred in
      the networked path. When the final destination performs
      restoration/reunification on TCP segments, it must include the
      one with any TCP flag bits set as the first concatenation and
      with the TCP options including the union of the TCP options of
      all concatenated packets or sub-parcels. For both TCP and UDP,
      any packet or sub-parcel containing the final segment must
      appear as a final concatenation.</t>

      <t>The final destination 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. Unless
      a security encapsulation is included, strict ordering is not
      mandatory since each segment will include a transport layer
      protocol specific start delimiter with positional coordinates.
      However, the Index field and/or Identification includes an ordinal
      value that preserves ordering since each sub-parcel or individual
      IPv6 packet contains an integral number of whole transport layer
      protocol segments.</t>

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

      <t>Note: Since loss and/or reordering may occur in the network,
      the final destination may receive a packet or sub-parcel with S
      set to 0 before all other elements 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 accepts any segments received from all
      such deliveries and will request retransmission of any segments
      that were lost and/or damaged.</t>

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

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

    <section anchor="probe" title="Parcel/Jumbo Path Probing">
      <t>All parcels also serve as implicit probes and may cause either a
      router in the path or the final destination to return an ordinary
      ICMPv6 error <xref target="RFC4443"/> and/or Packet Too Big (PTB)
      message <xref target="RFC8201"/> concerning the parcel. A router
      in the path or the final destination may also return a Parcel/Jumbo
      Report (subject to rate limiting per <xref target="RFC4443"/>)
      as discussed in <xref target="report"/>.</t>

      <t>To determine whether parcels can transit at least an initial
      portion of the forward path toward the final destination, the
      original source can also send parcels with a Parcel Payload
      option PMTU field included and set to the next hop link MTU as
      an explicit Parcel Probe. The Parcel Probe option format is shown
      in <xref target="parcel-probe"/>, where "Opt Data Len" is set
      to 18:
      <figure anchor="parcel-probe" title="IPv6 Parcel Probe Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  | Opt Data Len  |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |C|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-               Identification                  -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Path MTU (PMTU)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The parcel probe will cause the final destination or a router
      on the path to return a Parcel/Jumbo Report.</t>

      <t>A Parcel Probe can be included either in an ordinary data parcel
      or a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 parcel with destination port set to 9 (discard)
      <xref target="RFC0863"/>. The probe must 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/CRCs.</t>

      <t>If the original source receives a positive Parcel/Jumbo Report,
      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 Jumbo Report or no report/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 parcels used to carry real data. The probes will transit
      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/Jumbo Report it can continue using
      parcels after adjusting its segment size if necessary.</t>

      <t>The original source sends Parcel Probes unidirectionally in the
      forward path toward the final destination to elicit a report,
      since it will often be the case that parcels/AJs 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 parcels, but Parcel/Jumbo Reports must be packaged
      to reduce the risk of return path filtering. For this reason,
      the Parcel Payload options included in Parcel Probes are always
      packaged as IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options while Parcel/Jumbo Reports
      are returned as UDP/IPv6 encapsulated ICMPv6 PTB messages with
      a Parcel/Jumbo Report Code value (see: IANA Considerations).</t>

      <t>Original sources send ordinary parcels or discard parcels as
      explicit Parcel Probes by setting the Parcel Payload PMTU to the
      (non-zero) next hop link MTU. The source then sets Index/C/S,
      Parcel Payload Length, and {Total, Payload} Length, then calculates
      the header Checksum and per-segment Checksums/CRCs the same as for
      an ordinary parcel. The source finally sends the Parcel Probe via
      the outbound IPv6 interface.</t>

      <t>Original sources can send Parcel Probes that include a large
      segment size, but these may be dropped by a router on the path even
      if the next hop link is parcel-capable. The original source may
      then receive a Jumbo Report that contains only the MTU of the leading
      portion of the path up to the router with the restrictive link. The
      original source can instead send Parcel Probes with smaller segments
      that would be likely to transit the entire forward path to the final
      destination if all links are parcel-capable. For parcel-capable
      paths, this may allow the original source to discover both the path
      MTU and the MSS in a single message exchange instead of multiple.</t>

      <t>According to <xref target="RFC9268"/>, IPv6 middleboxes (i.e.,
      routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that do not observe
      this specification will either ignore the option altogether or
      notice that the option length differs from its base definition
      and presumably ignore the option or drop the packet. IPv6
      middleboxes that observe this specification instead MUST process
      the option as an implicit or explicit Parcel Probe.</t>

      <t>When a router that observes this specification receives a
      Parcel Probe it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IPv6
      header Hop Limit; if either value differs, the router drops the
      probe and returns a negative Jumbo Report subject to rate limiting.
      (Note that the Parcel Probe may also have been truncated in length
      by a previous-hop router that does not recognize the construct.)
      For all other intact Parcel Probes, if the next hop link is
      non-parcel-capable the router compares PMTU with the next hop link
      MTU and returns a positive Parcel Report subject to rate limiting
      with MTU set to the minimum value. The router then applies
      packetization to convert the probe into individual IPv6 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. The router next MUST
      (re)set PMTU to the minimum value then forward the probe to the
      next hop (and also reset Check to the same value that will appear
      in the IPv6 header Hop Limit upon transmission to the next hop).
      If the next hop link supports parcels but configures an MTU
      that is too small to pass the probe, the router then applies
      parcellation to break the probe into multiple smaller sub-parcels
      that can transit the link. In the process, the router sets PMTU
      to the minimum link MTU value in the first sub-parcel and omits
      the PMTU field in all non-first sub-parcels (and also resets
      Check in all sub-parcels). 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 drops
      the probe and returns a positive Jumbo Report subject to
      rate limiting with MTU set to the next hop link MTU.</t>

      <t>The final destination may therefore receive individual IPv6
      packets and/or (sub-)parcels including intact Parcel Probes. If
      the final destination receives individual packets, it performs
      any necessary integrity checks, applies restoration if possible
      then delivers the (restored) parcel contents to the transport
      layer. If the final destination receives a (sub-)parcel with an
      intact Parcel Probe, it first compares Code with 255 and Check
      with the IPv6 header Hop Limit; if either value differs, the
      final destination drops the probe and returns a negative Jumbo
      Report. (Note that the Parcel Probe may also have been truncated
      in length by a previous-hop router that does not recognize the
      construct.) For all other intact Parcel Probes, if the {TCP,UDP}
      port number is not 9 (discard) it applies reunification and
      delivers the (reunified) parcel contents to the transport
      layer. The final destination then returns a positive Jumbo
      Report to the original source.</t>

      <t>After sending Parcel Probes (or ordinary parcels) the original
      source may therefore receive UDP/IPv6 encapsulated Parcel/Jumbo
      Reports and/or transport layer protocol probe replies. If the
      source receives a Parcel/Jumbo Report, it verifies the UDP
      Checksum then verifies that the ICMPv6 Checksum is 0. If both
      Checksum values are correct, the node then  matches the enclosed
      PTB message with an original probe/parcel by examining the ICMPv6
      "packet in error" containing the leading portion of the invoking
      packet. If the "packet in error" does not match one of its previous
      packets, the source discards the Parcel/Jumbo Report; otherwise,
      it continues to process.</t>

      <t>If the source receives a negative Parcel/Jumbo Report (i.e.,
      one with MTU set to 0), it marks the path as "parcels not supported".
      Otherwise, the source 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/Jumbo
      Report). If the MTU value is 65535 (plus headers) or larger, the MTU
      determines the largest whole parcel that can transit the path without
      packetization/parcellation while using any segment size up to and
      including the maximum. For Reports that include a smaller MTU, the
      value represents both the largest whole parcel size and a maximum
      segment size limitation. In that case, the maximum parcel size that
      can transit the initial portion of the path may be larger than the
      maximum segment size that can continue to transit the remaining path
      to the final destination.</t>

      <t>Note: when a source sends a parcel probe into a new path that
      has not been probed previously, it should include enough padding
      payload so that the overall packet length is consistent with the
      value found in the IPv6 Payload Length field. This allows legacy
      routers on the path that do not recognize parcels to see a length
      that is consistent with the value found in the IPv6 header.</t>

      <t>Note: the path MTU discovered through a Parcel Probe exchange
      can conceivably exceed the maximum-sized parcel, since link MTUs
      are represented as 32-bit values whereas the maximum-sized parcel
      is limited to 24 bits. For this reason, Parcel Probes can serve
      the dual purpose of also determining the maximum AJ size that
      can traverse the path.</t>

      <t>For further discussion on parcel/AJ probing alternatives,
      see: <xref target="two-way"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="report" title="Parcel/Jumbo Reports">
      <t>When a router or final destination returns a Parcel/Jumbo Report,
      it prepares an ICMPv6 PTB message <xref target="RFC4443"/> with Code
      set to either Parcel Report or Jumbo Report (see: IANA considerations)
      and with MTU set to either the minimum MTU value for a positive report
      or to 0 for a negative report. The node then writes its own IPv6 address
      as the Parcel/Jumbo Report source and writes the source address of the
      packet that invoked the report as the Parcel/Jumbo Report destination.

      The node next copies as much of the leading portion of the invoking
      parcel/AJ as possible (beginning with the IPv6 header) into the
      "packet in error" field without causing the entire Parcel/Jumbo Report
      (beginning with the IPv6 header) to exceed 512 octets in length. The
      node then sets the Checksum field to 0 instead of calculating and
      setting a true checksum since the UDP checksum (see below) already
      provides an integrity check.</t>

      <t>Since middleboxes often filter ICMPv6 messages, the node next wraps
      the Parcel/Jumbo Report in UDP/IPv6 headers with the IPv6 source and
      destination addresses copied from the Parcel/Jumbo Report and with UDP
      port numbers set to the OMNI UDP port number <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>. The node next calculates and sets
      the UDP Checksum, then finally sends the prepared Parcel/Jumbo
      Report to the original source of the probe.</t>

      <t>Note: This implies that original sources that send parcels/AJs
      must be capable of accepting and processing these OMNI protocol UDP
      messages. A source that sends parcels/AJs must therefore implement
      enough of the OMNI interface to be able to recognize and process
      these messages.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="mtu-frag" title="MTU/Fragmentation Reports">
      <t>When a destination end system receives an intact Parcel/Jumbo
      probe, it can return an ICMPv6 Jumbo Report as discussed above, but
      this may expose a security vulnerability in environments where such
      messages can be spoofed. The destination can therefore instead
      include an MTU/Fragmentation Report option as a {TCP/UDP} option
      in a return packet to the source the same as specified in <xref
      target="I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext"/>. Any {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet
      that is part of an ongoing flow can be used to carry the option,
      especially if it includes identifying information such as
      transport layer parameters and/or authentication signatures.</t>

      <t>The destination prepares the MTU/Fragmentation Report option
      by setting MTU to the minimum of the path MTU value received in
      the Parcel/Jumbo probe and its own receive buffer size, then sets
      Identification to the value included in the probe and omits the
      Bitmap (since this is not a fragmentation report). The destination
      then sets Kind, Length and ExID accordingly, and inserts the
      {TCP,UDP} header of any available IPv6 packet. The destination
      finally includes any other parameters for the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      packet and returns it to the source.</t>

      <t>When the source receives an authentic {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet
      that includes the option, it matches the Identification value
      with a recently-transmitted Parcel/Jumbo probe. If the value
      matches, the source records the reported MTU and marks this
      destination as "Parcels/Jumbos supported". Since the IPv6
      packet used to transit the option also includes other
      authenticating information, the source should regard such
      a probe reply as more authoritative than one received in
      an ICMPv6 Parcel/Jumbo Reply.</t> 
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jumbo" title="Advanced Jumbos (AJ)">
      <t>This specification introduces an IPv6 Advanced Jumbo (AJ) service
      as an alternative to parcels and basic jumbograms that also includes
      a path probing function based on the mechanisms specified in <xref
      target="probe"/>. The function employs an Advanced Jumbo Option with
      the same IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option Type and same basic format as for
      the Parcel Payload option.</t>

      <t>AJs that do not include an Identification and Path MTU field set
      Opt Data Len to 6, while those that include an Identification instead
      set Opt Data Len to 14. For AJ Probes, both the Identification
      and a trailing PMTU field must be included with Opt Data Len set
      to 18. The Parcel Index and Parcel Payload Length fields are also
      replaced by a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field, and the option
      has the structure shown in <xref target="jumbo-probe"/>:

      <figure anchor="jumbo-probe"
              title="Advanced Jumbo/Probe Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Jumbo Payload Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~                Identification               ~+~+~+~+~+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
   ~                  Path MTU (PMTU) (Probes Only)                ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
   ]]></artwork></figure>{TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJs and AJ Probes are formed the
      same as for parcels as shown in <xref target="struct"/> except that
      they include only a single segment ("Segment 0"). AJs that follow
      the classic link model then set Payload Length to a Type value 1
      and do not include a per-segment Checksum header and CRC/digest
      trailer. AJs that follow the DTN link model instead set Payload
      Length to a Type value other than 1 (see: <xref target=
      "adv-jumbo-digest"/>) and include both a per-segment 2-octet
      Checksum header and N-octet message digest trailer. Unlike
      parcels, TCP AJs do not include a separate Sequence Number
      header for the (single) segment since the sequence number is
      coded in the TCP header the same as for an ordinary packet.</t>

      <t>AJs that observe the DTN link model employ the message digest
      algorithms specified for MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref
      target="RFC3174"/> and the advanced US Secure Hash Algorithms
      <xref target="RFC6234"/> according the to AJ Type. AJs can
      instead employ a CRC32C/CRC64E integrity check by selecting a
      Type value with a CRC code instead of a message digest. (A
      Type value is also reserved by IANA as a non-functional
      placeholder for a nominal CRC128J algorithm, which may be
      specified in future documents - see: <xref target="crc128j"/>.)</t>

      <t>AJ implementations MUST support the following integrity
      checking algorithms identified by their Type:
      <figure anchor="adv-jumbo-digest" title="Mandatory Advanced Jumbo Algorithms">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Type    Algorithm      CRC/Digest Length
   ----    ---------      -----------------
   1       NULL           0 octets
   2       CRC32C         4 octets
   3       CRC64E         8 octets
   4       MD5            16 octets
   5       SHA1           20 octets
   6       SHA-224        28 octets
   7       SHA-256        32 octets
   8       SHA-384        48 octets
   9       SHA-512        64 octets
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>To prepare an AJ Probe that will trigger a Jumbo Report,
      the source can set Next Header to {TCP,UDP}, set the {TCP,UDP}
      port to 9 (discard) and either include no octets beyond the
      {TCP,UDP} header or a single discard segment of the desired
      probe size immediately following the header. (The source
      can instead set the {TCP,UDP} port to the port number for a
      current data flow in order to receive MTU/Fragmentation
      Report options in return packets as discussed in <xref
      target="probe"/>.) The source then sets Jumbo Payload Length
      to the length of the segment plus the length of the IPv6
      extension headers plus the {TCP,UDP} header plus the length
      of the segment Checksum header and message digest trailer
      (when present).</t>

      <t>The source next sets the Identification the same
      as for a Parcel Probe, sets the AJ Probe PMTU to the
      next hop link MTU, then sets Code to 255 and Check to the next
      hop TTL/Hop Limit. The source then calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum
      based on the same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see:
      <xref target="pseudo"/>) but with the Parcel Index and Payload
      Length fields replaced with a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field
      and with the Segment Length replaced with one of the supported
      Advanced Jumbo Type values.</t>

      <t>For an AJ Probe prepared according to the classic link model,
      the source extends the checksum calculation over the pseudo-header,
      {TCP,UDP} header and the entire length of the segment the same as
      for an ordinary packet and writes the value into the {TCP,UDP}
      checksum field. For AJ Probes prepared according to the DTN link model,
      the source instead calculates the header checksum only and writes
      the value into the {TCP,UDP} header checksum field the same as
      specified for parcels. The source then calculates the checksum
      of the segment payload, writes the value into the segment Checksum
      header, then calculates the CRC or message digest over the length
      of the (single) segment beginning with the Checksum field and
      writes the value into the trailer. The source then sends the
      AJ Probe via the next hop link toward the final destination.</t>

      <t>At each forwarding hop, the router examines Code and Check
      then drops the AJ Probe and returns a negative Jumbo Report if
      either value is incorrect. (Note that the AJ Probe may also
      have been truncated in length by a previous-hop router that does
      not recognize the construct.) For all other intact probes, if the
      next hop link is jumbo-capable the router compares PMTU to the next
      hop link MTU, resets PMTU to the minimum value, sets Check to the
      next hop TTL/Hop Limit then forwards the AJ 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 Report.</t>

      <t>If the AJ Probe encounters an OMNI link, the OAL source can
      either drop the probe and return a negative Jumbo Report or set
      PMTU to the minimum of itself and 65535 octets then forward the
      probe further toward the OAL destination using adaptation layer
      encapsulation/fragmentation. If the OAL source already knows a
      larger-sized OAL path MTU for this OAL destination, it can
      encapsulate and forward the AJ 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.</t>

      <t>If the AJ Probe PMTU is larger than 65535 and the OAL path
      MTU is unknown, the OAL source can instead encapsulate the
      probe in an adaptation layer IPv6 header with an Advanced Jumbo
      option and with padding octets added beyond the end of the
      encapsulated probe to form an adaptation layer jumbogram
      as large as the minimum of PMTU and (2**24 - 1) octets (minus
      the adaptation layer header size) as a form of "jumbo-in-jumbo"
      encapsulation.</t>

      <t>The OAL source then writes this size into the AJ Probe
      PMTU field and forwards the newly-created adaptation layer
      jumbogram toward the OAL destination. If the jumbogram somehow
      transits 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>When a router on the path forwards an AJ Probe, it drops
      and returns a Jumbo Report if the next hop MTU is insufficient;
      otherwise, it forwards to the next hop toward the final destination.
      When the final destination receives the probe, it returns
      a Jumbo Report and or a {TCP,UDP} packet with an MTU/Fragmentation
      Report option with the PMTU set to the maximum-sized jumbo that
      can transit the path.</t>

      <t>After successfully probing the path, the original source
      can begin sending AJs by setting the IPv6 Payload Length field
      to one of the supported Advanced Jumbo Type values, omitting
      the PMTU (and possibly also Identification) field and preparing
      the rest of the AJ the same as described for AJ Probes above.
      When the network layer of the final destination receives an AJ,
      it first verifies the integrity checks then delivers the data
      (along with a CRC/Checksum error flag) to the transport layer.
      The source can continue to send AJs into the path with the
      possibility that the path may change. In that case, a router
      in the network may return an ICMP error, an ICMPv6 PTB, or
      a Jumbo Report if the path MTU decreases.</t>

      <t>Note: when a source sends an AJ/probe into a new path that
      has not been probed previously, it should include enough padding
      payload so that the overall packet length is consistent with the
      value found in the IPv6 Payload Length field. This allows legacy
      routers on the path that do not recognize AJs to see a length
      that is consistent with the value found in the IPv6 header.</t>

      <t>Note: If an OAL source can in some way determine that a very
      large packet is likely to transit the OAL path, it can encapsulate
      an AJ/probe to form an adaptation layer jumbogram even larger
      than (2**24 - 1) octets with the understanding that the time
      required to transit the path plus the receive buffer size
      determine acceptable sizes.</t>

      <t>Note: The Jumbo Report message types returned in response to
      both Parcel and AJ Probes are one and the same, and signify
      that both parcels and AJs at least as large as the reported MTU
      can transit the path. However, only a Parcel Probe (i.e., and
      not a Jumbo Probe) may elicit a Parcel Report. This may indicate
      a preference to use Parcel Probes instead of AJ Probes for
      general-purpose path probing.</t>

      <t>Note: unlike basic jumbograms, AJs may encode a Jumbo Payload
      Length value smaller than 65536. This means that AJs can range
      in size from as small as the headers plus a minimal or even null
      payload to as large as 2**32 octets minus headers. This allows
      smaller AJs to operate within the traditional realms of ordinary
      packets or singleton parcels, according to the new link service
      model.</t>

      <t>Note: When the source has assurance that the path will pass
      AJs smaller than the measured path MTU, it can suspend explicit
      transmission of the Identification values for these smaller AJs
      to reduce overhead. However, each packet/parcel/AJ transmission
      still increments the source's internal Identification counter
      whether or not the current Identification value explicitly
      transmitted.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jumbo-payload" title="Minimal IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos">
      <t>The basic IPv6 parcel/AJ constructs specified in the previous sections
      use the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop option <xref target="RFC9268"/>
      initially to allow each hop to participate in path qualification. Once a
      path has been qualified to accept the basic constructs, however, the source
      can begin sending minimal IPv6 parcels/AJs that instead use the IPv6 Jumbo
      Payload Hop-by-Hop Option <xref target="RFC2675"/> to benefit from a
      per parcel/AJ overhead savings as shown in <xref target="minimal-jumbo"/>:</t>

      <t><figure anchor="minimal-jumbo" title="IPv6 Minimal Parcel/Jumbo Option Format">
      <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Option Data (first four octets)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~                Identification               ~+~+~+~+~+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>In this format, the network layer includes the IPv6 minimal
      Parcel/Jumbo Option as an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option with Option Type
      set to '0xC2' and Opt Data Len set to 4 or 12 depending on whether
      an identification is included (see: <xref target="jumbo"/>). For
      parcels, the first four octets of the Option Data are formatted
      exactly as shown in <xref target="parcel-fmt"/> while for AJs
      the first four octets are exactly as shown in <xref target=
      "jumbo-probe"/>. The network layer prepares all other aspects
      of IPv6 minimal parcels/AJs exactly the same as for the basic
      specifications found in previous sections except the option
      type/length are different and the Code/Check fields are omitted.</t>

      <t>This implies that implementations that honor the basic IPv6
      parcel/AJ formats and processing specified in the previous
      sections MUST also honor the IPv6 Minimal Parcel/Jumbo Option
      format specified above as an equivalent construct. Therefore,
      the Parcel/Jumbo probe results received for the basic formats
      also serve as probe results for the minimal format.</t>

      <t>Since the minimal format does not include Code and Check fields,
      intermediate and end systems must monitor the lengths of minimal
      parcels/AJs they receive in case the path changes and a previous
      hop begins truncating them. In that case, the node MUST drop the
      parcel/AJ and return a negative Jumbo Report to the source which
      must then re-initiate parcel/jumbo path probing.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="omni-parcel" title="OMNI IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos">
      <t>Network intermediate systems often drop packets that contain
      unrecognized IPv6 extension headers unconditionally. This presents
      an obstacle to deploying new Internet extensions. Rather than wait
      for network systems to catch up, the source could instead employ
      an alternative more likely to provide service by concealing IPv6
      extension headers within the body of a protocol data unit such
      as UDP.</t>

      <t>End systems and intermediate systems that recognize the OMNI
      protocol <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/> can use the
      parcel, AJ and minimal parcel/jumbo formats specified in this
      document as native protocol extension headers coded within
      the body of the OMNI protocol data unit.</t>

      <t>The section titled "OMNI L2 Extension Header Encapsulation" in
      <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/> depicts protocol layering
      for encapsulation of IPv6 Extension Headers in IPv6 packets
      as shown in <xref target="omni-jumbo"/>:</t>
      <t><figure anchor="omni-jumbo" title="OMNI IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos">
      <artwork><![CDATA[   +---------------------------+
   |  L2 IPv6/Ethernet Header  |
   +---------------------------+
   | L2 UDP Header (port 8060) |
   +---------------------------+
   ~ L2 IPv6 Extension Headers ~
   +---------------------------+
   |   OAL IPv6 Encapsulation  |
   +---------------------------+
   ~    OAL IPv6 Extensions    ~
   +---------------------------+
   |                           |
   ~                           ~
   ~   Original IPv6 Packet    ~
   ~                           ~
   |                           |
   +---------------------------+]]></artwork></figure></t>
      <t>In this encapsulation format, the IPv6 parcel, AJ and minimal
      parcel/jumbo extension headers specified in previous sections as
      well as the IPv6 Extended Fragment Header appear as IPv6 Extension
      Headers following the OMNI protocol UDP, IPv6 or Ethernet header. The
      OMNI protocol requires each node to honor and implement the parcel/AJ
      constructs specified in this document with reference to <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/>. This includes the setting of the IPv6
      Payload Length fields as well as the settings of the parcel/AJ
      options themselves.</t>

      <t>Intermediate systems that do not recognize the OMNI protocol are
      likely to drop any OMNI packets that include parcel/AJ options, but
      they may instead forward the packet without updating the Code/Check
      values and/or while truncating the overall packet length. Intermediate
      systems and end systems that recognize OMNI therefore perform the
      checks specified in this document to determine whether previous
      path hops correctly process parcels/AJs.</t>

      <t>Since parcel/AJ options are coded within the OMNI protocol
      data unit itself instead of as an IPv6 header extension, network
      intermediate systems must also reset the OMNI protocol checksum
      if necessary when they alter the contents of an option (such as
      when resetting Path MTU or Check). For this reason, sources MAY
      disable the OMNI protocol checksum in path probes and SHOULD
      advance to using minimal parcels/AJs soon after probing the
      path to minimize intermediate system checksum interactions.</t>

      <t>See: <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-omni"/> for the full
      specification of OMNI L2 Extension Header encapsulation and
      processing. All parcel/AJ implementations that recognize the
      OMNI protocol are required to implement those portions of
      the OMNI specification.</t>
 
      <t>Note: OMNI-encapsulated parcels/AJs appear as ordinary IP
      packets to lower layers where they are subject to the classic
      link model in which errored frames are dropped and not forwarded
      to the next hop. The DTN link model is therefore engaged only for
      "native" (unencapsulated) parcels/AJs.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="integrity" title="Integrity">
      <t>IPv6 parcel/AJ integrity assurance responsibility is shared
      between lower layers of the protocol stack and the transport
      layer where more discrete compensations for lost or corrupted data
      recovery can be applied. In the classic link model, parcels and
      AJs are delivered to the final destination only if they pass the
      integrity checks of all links in the path. In the DTN link model,
      intermediate system lower layers forward parcels/AJs with correct
      headers to the final destination transport layer even if cumulative
      link errors were incurred at intermediate hops. The destination
      is then ultimately responsible for its own integrity assurance.</t>

      <t>The {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header plus each segment of a (multi-segment)
      parcel or (DTN) AJ includes its own integrity checks. This means that
      parcels/AJs offer stronger and more discrete integrity checks for
      the same amount of transport layer protocol data compared to an
      ordinary IPv6 packet or jumbogram. In the DTN link model, the
      {TCP,UDP} Checksum header integrity check SHOULD be verified by
      each hop for which a link error is encountered to ensure that
      parcels/AJs with errored addressing information are detected.
      The per-segment Checksums/CRCs are set by the source and
      verified by the destination. Note that in the DTN link model
      each segment includes both checks since there will be many
      instances when errors missed by the CRC are detected by the
      Checksum <xref target="STONE"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels can range in length from as small as only the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers plus a single segment to as large as the
      headers plus (64 * 65535) octets, while AJs include only a single
      segment that can be as small as a null segment to as large as
      2**32 octets (minus headers). Due to parcellation/packetization
      in the path, the segment contents of a received parcel may arrive
      in an incomplete and/or rearranged order with respect to their
      original packaging.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs include a separate 2-octet Internet Checksum
      header for each segment. The original source calculates the checksum
      for each segment beginning with the first octet of the per-segment
      Sequence Number (for TCP) then continuing with the first segment
      octet (noting that per-segment Checksum values of 0 indicate that
      the segment checksum is disabled). The source extends the checksum
      calculation over the entire length of the segment but does not
      extend the calculation into the trailing CRC field.</t>
 
      <t>IPv6 parcels that engage the DTN link model employ two different
      CRC types according to the non-final segment length "L". For values
      of L smaller than 9216 octets (9KB), the original source uses the
      CRC32C specification <xref target="RFC3385"/> and encodes the CRC
      in a 4 octet trailer. For larger L values, the source uses the
      CRC64E specification <xref target="ECMA-182"/> and encodes the CRC
      in an 8 octet trailer. AJs that engage the DTN link model instead
      include either a 4/8 octet CRC or an N-octet message digest trailer
      calculated per <xref target="RFC1321"/>, <xref target="RFC3174"/> or
      <xref target="RFC6234"/> where N is determined according to the hash
      algorithm assigned to the Advanced Jumbo Type.</t>

      <t>Under the DTN link model, when the network layer of the link far
      end detects a link error it SHOULD verify the parcel/AJ {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      header Checksum at its layer, since an errored header could result in
      mis-delivery. If the network layer of the link far end detects an
      incorrect {TCP,UDP}/IP header Checksum it should discard the entire
      parcel/AJ unless the header(s) can somehow first be repaired. If the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header Checksum was correct, but the link far end
      detected CRC errors, the network layer sets a "CRC error" flag in
      the parcel/AJ option.</t>

      <t>The CRC error flag entails clearing/setting the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
      Option Type third-highest-order bit as "0 - Option does not change
      en route or "1 - Option Data may change en route" or <xref target=
      "RFC8200"/>. Therefore, nodes must recognize the Option Type '0x10'
      as "IPv6 Parcel/AJ with errors' and  Option Type '0xE2' as "Minimal
      IPv6 Parcel/AJ with errors" (see: IANA Considerations).</t>

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

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

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

          <t>For parcels, Index/C/S is the combined 1-octet field and
          Parcel Payload Length is the 3-octet field that appear in
          the Parcel Payload Option fields of the same name. For AJs,
          these two fields are replaced by a single 4-octet Jumbo
          Payload Length field.</t>

          <t>Segment Length is the value that appears in the IPv6
          Payload Length field of the prepared parcel/AJ.</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>
        </list></t>

      <t>When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers
      a parcel body to the network layer, it presents the values L and J
      along with the (J + 1) segments in canonical order as a list of
      data buffers and with each TCP segment preceded by a 4-octet
      Sequence Number field. (For AJs, the transport layer instead
      delivers the singleton AJ segment along with the Jumbo Payload
      Length.) When the network layer of the source accepts the
      parcel/AJ body from the transport layer protocol entity, it
      calculates the Internet checksum for each segment and writes
      the value in the per-segment Checksum header (or writes the value
      0 when UDP checksums are disabled). For parcels/AJs prepared
      according to the DTN link model, the network layer then calculates
      the CRC/message digest for each segment beginning with the Checksum
      field and inserts the result as a segment trailer in network byte
      order. The network layer then concatenates all segments and appends
      the necessary {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers and extensions to form a
      parcel. The network layer then calculates the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      header checksum over the length of only the {TCP,UDP} headers
      plus IPv6 pseudo header then forwards the parcel to the next
      hop without further processing.</t>

      <t>When the network layer of the destination accepts an AJ or
      reunifies a parcel from one or more sub-parcels received from
      the source it first verifies the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header checksum
      then verifies first the CRC/digest (if present) and next the
      Checksum (except when UDP checksums are disabled) for each segment
      and marks any with incorrect integrity check values as errors.
      When the network layer restores a parcel from one or more individual
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packets received from the source, it instead marks
      the CRCs of each segment as correct since the individual packets
      were subject to CRC checks at each hop along the path. The network
      layer then verifies the Internet checksum of each individual packet
      (except when UDP checksums are disabled), restores the parcel, and
      delivers each parcel/AJ segment along with a CRC/Checksum
      error flag to the transport layer.</t>

      <t>When the transport layer of the destination processes parcel
      or AJ segments, it can accept any with correct CRCs/Checksums
      while optionally applying additional higher-layer integrity checks.
      The transport layer can instead process any segments with incorrect
      CRC/Checksum by either discarding the entire segment or applying
      higher-layer integrity checks on the component elements of the
      segment to accept as many non-errored elements as possible. The
      transport layer can then either reconstruct from local information
      or request retransmission for any segment elements that may have
      been damaged in transit as necessary.</t>

      <t>Note: Under the DTN link model, when the destination
      network layer receives a parcel with an IPv6 Option Type with
      third-highest-order bit set to indicate that a link CRC error
      was detected, it still engages its per-segment integrity checks
      to accept as many error-free segments as possible. When the
      destination receives an AJ with a CRC error setting, it need
      not engage its (single segment) integrity checks since the
      segment is already known to include link errors.</t>

      <t>Note: Under the DTN link model, when the destination network
      layer detects a per-segment CRC error it immediately posts the
      segment plus an error code for delivery to the transport instead
      of continuing to verify the segment Checksum. Performing a second
      integrity check on a segment already determined to contain errors
      by a first check would serve no useful purpose.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>The IANA is instructed to add a reference to this document
      ([RFCXXXX]) in the "Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option" entry
      in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" table of
      the 'ipv6-parameters' registry.</t>

      <t>The IANA is instructed to assign new Code values in the
      "ICMPv6 Code Fields: Type 2 - Packet Too Big" table in the
      'icmpv6-parameters' registry (registration procedure is Standards
      Action or IESG Approval). The registry entries should appear as
      follows:<figure anchor="omni-pmtu-code"
            title="ICMPv6 Code Fields: Type 2 - Packet Too Big Values">
            <artwork><![CDATA[   Code            Name                         Reference
   ---             ----                         ---------
   1 (suggested)   Parcel Report                [RFCXXXX]
   2 (suggested)   Jumbo Report                 [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The IANA is requested to assign two new entries in the
      'ipv6-parameters' registry "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop
      Options" table (registration procedures IESG Approval, IETF
      Review or Standards Action). The first entry sets "Hex Value"
      to '0xE2', "acct" to '11', "chg" to '1', "rest" to '00010' and
      Description to "Minimal Parcel/AJ With Errors". The second
      entry sets "Hex Value" to '0x10', "acct" to '00', "chg" to
      '1', "rest" to '10000'  and Description to "Parcel/AJ With
      Errors". Both entries set "Reference" to this document
      [RFCXXXX].</t>

      <t>The IANA is instructed to create and maintain a new registry titled
      "IPv6 Parcel and Advanced Jumbo Formats and Types".</t>

      <t>For IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the 'Opt Data Len'
      field of the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option <xref target="RFC9268"/>
      serves as an "Option Format" code that distinguishes the various IPv6 option
      formats specified in this document. Initial values are given below:
      <figure anchor="ipv6-format" title="IPv6 Parcel/Jumbo Option Formats">
            <artwork><![CDATA[   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------  
   4           IPv6 Minimum Path MTU           [RFC9268]
   6           Advanced Jumbo (no ID)          [RFCXXXX]
   14          Parcel/Advanced Jumbo           [RFCXXXX]
   18          Parcel/Advanced Jumbo Probe     [RFCXXXX]
   0-3         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   5           Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   7-13        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   15-17       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   19-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>For minimal IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the
      'Opt Data Len' field of the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop Option
      <xref target="RFC2675"/> serves as an "Option Format" code that
      distinguishes the minimal formats specified in this document.
      Initial values are given below:
      <figure anchor="ipv6-min-format" title="IPv6 Minimal Parcel/Jumbo Option Formats">
            <artwork><![CDATA[   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------  
   4           Minimal Jumbo/AJ (no ID)        [RFC2675]
   12          Minimal Parcel/AJ (with ID)     [RFCXXXX]
   0-3         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   5-11        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   13-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>For all IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos and their corresponding
      probes, the IPv6 Payload Length field encodes an "Advanced
      Jumbo Type" value instead of an ordinary total/payload length.
      Initial values are given below:
      <figure anchor="jumbo-type" title="IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Types">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Value        Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----        ----------                     ---------  
   0            Basic Jumbogram (IPv6 only)    [RFC2675]
   1            Advanced Jumbo / NULL          [RFCXXXX]
   2            Advanced Jumbo / CRC32C        [RFCXXXX]
   3            Advanced Jumbo / CRC64E        [RFCXXXX]
   4            Advanced Jumbo / MD5           [RFCXXXX]
   5            Advanced Jumbo / SHA1          [RFCXXXX]
   6            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-224       [RFCXXXX]
   7            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-256       [RFCXXXX]
   8            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-384       [RFCXXXX]
   9            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-512       [RFCXXXX]
   10           Advanced Jumbo / CRC128J       [RFCXXXX]
   11-253       Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]
   254          Reserved for Experimentation   [RFCXXXX]
   255          Reserved by IANA               [RFCXXXX]
   256-9216     IPv6 Parcel / CRC32C           [RFCXXXX]
   9217-65535   IPv6 Parcel / CRC64E           [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>


      <t>The IANA is instructed to assign a new entry in the "TCP
      Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)" table
      of the 'tcp-parameters' registry (registration procedures
      First Come First Served per <xref target="RFC6994"/>). The
      table entry should set "Value" to TBD1, "Description" to
      "Parcel Segment" and "Reference" to this document
      [draft-templin-6man-parcels]. The IANA is also instructed
      to assign the same value TBD1 as an entry in the to-be-created
      "UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)"
      table (registration procedures First Come First served per
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options"/>). This document
      places no preferences on the actual TBD1 value assignment.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>In the control plane, original sources match the Identification
      (and/or other identifying information) received in Parcel/Jumbo
      Reports with their corresponding parcels/AJs. If the identifying
      information matches, the report is likely authentic. When stronger
      authentication is needed, nodes that send Parcel/Jumbo Reports can
      apply the message authentication services specified for AERO/OMNI.
      For nodes that send MTU/Fragmentation Report options included as
      {TCP,UDP} options in ordinary data packets, however, the
      authenticating services that apply to the data packets also
      provide authentication for the reports.</t>

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

      <t>IPv4 fragment reassembly is considered dangerous at high data
      rates where undetected reassembly buffer corruptions can result
      from fragment misassociations <xref target="RFC4963"/>. IPv6 is
      less subject to these concerns when the 32-bit Identification field
      is managed responsibly but this may be less true if the starting
      sequence number is changed frequently. However, IPv6 can robustly
      sustain high data rate restoration/reunification and uniqueness
      verification using the 64-bit Identifications included in
      Parcels/AJs.</t>

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

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

      <t>This work has been presented at working group sessions of the
      Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The following individuals
      are acknowledged for their contributions: Roland Bless, Scott
      Burleigh, Madhuri Madhava Badgandi, Joel Halpern, Tom Herbert,
      Andy Malis, Herbie Robinson, Bhargava Raman Sai Prakash.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?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.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.RFC.9268"?>

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

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

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

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6994"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126"?>

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

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing"?>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <t>Since TCP/IPv6 parcels only include control bits for the first
      segment ("segment(0)"), nodes must regard all other segments of the
      same parcel as data segments. When a node breaks a TCP/IPv6 parcel
      out into individual packets or sub-parcels, only the first packet or
      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 IPv6 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 a parcel/AJ 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="Extreme L Value Implications">
      <t>For each parcel, the transport layer can specify any L value
      between 256 and 65535 octets. Transport protocols that send
      isolated control and/or data segments smaller than 256 octets
      should package them as ordinary packets, AJs, singleton parcels
      or as the final segment of a larger parcel. It is also important
      to note that segments smaller than 256 octets are likely to
      include control information for which timely delivery rather
      than bulk packaging is desired. Transport protocol streams
      therefore often include a mix of (larger) parcels and (smaller)
      ordinary packets, AJs or singleton parcels.</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 6/10 octets for
      the per-segment Checksum/CRC) the transport should specify an
      L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24 - 10) = 65433 octets.</t>

      <t>The transport can specify still larger "extreme" L values up
      to 65535 octets, but the resulting parcels might be lost along
      some paths with unpredictable results. For example, a parcel
      with an extreme L value set as large as 65535 might be able to
      transit paths that can pass 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 extreme L values larger than the
      recommended maximum due to high risk of loss compared with only
      minor potential performance benefits.</t>

      <t>Parcels that include extreme 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 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 extreme
      L values larger than the recommended maximum.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="two-way" title="Additional Parcel/Jumbo Probe Considerations">
      <t>After sending a Parcel/Jumbo Probe, the source may receive a
      Parcel/Jumbo Report from either a router on the path or from the
      final destination itself. If a router or final destination receives
      a Parcel/Jumbo Probe but does not recognize the parcel/AJ constructs,
      it will likely drop 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>

      <t>When the source examines the "packet in error" portion of
      a Parcel/Jumbo Report, it can easily match the Report against its
      recent transmissions if the Identification value is available.
      For each "packet in error" that does not include an Identification,
      the source can attempt to match based on any other identifying
      information; otherwise, it should discard the message.</t>

      <t>If the source receives multiple Parcel/Jumbo Reports for a
      single parcel/jumbo sent into a given path, it should prefer any
      information reported by the final destination over information
      reported by a router. For example, if a router returns a negative
      report while the destination returns a positive report the latter
      should be considered as more-authoritative. For this reason, the
      source should provide a configuration knob allowing it to accept
      or ignore reports that originate from routers, e.g., according
      to the network trust model.</t>

      <t>When a destination returns a Parcel/Jumbo Report, it can
      optionally attach the report to an ordinary data packet, parcel
      or AJ that it returns to the original source. For example, the
      OMNI specification includes a "super-packet" service that allows
      multiple independent IPv6 packets to be encapsulated as attachments
      to a single adaptation layer packet. This is distinct from an IP
      parcel in that each packet member of the super-packet includes
      its own IPv6 (and possibly other upper layer) header.</t>
    </section>

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

    <section anchor="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 review.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
