<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-templin-6man-parcels2-11"
     ipr="trust200902" updates="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="29" month="September" year="2024"/>

    <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 termed IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)
      with different properties. Parcels permit a single packet to include
      multiple segments as a "packet-of-packets", while AJs offer essential
      operational advantages over basic jumbograms for transporting singleton
      segments of all sizes ranging from very small to very large. Parcels and
      AJs provide essential building blocks for improved performance, efficiency
      and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs)
      according to both the classic Internetworking link model and a new Delay
      Tolerant Network (DTN) link model.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>IPv6 packets <xref target="RFC8200"/> contain a single unit of transport
      layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Transport layer protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      <xref target="RFC9293"/> and reliable transport protocol users of the
      User Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref target="RFC0768"/> (including QUIC
      <xref target="RFC9000"/>, LTP <xref target="RFC5326"/> and others)
      prepare data units known as segments which the network layer packages
      into individual IPv6 packets each containing only a single segment. This
      document presents a new construct termed the "IPv6 Parcel" which permits
      a single packet to include multiple segments. The parcel is essentially
      a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers appearing
      only once but with possibly multiple segments included. IPv6 parcels
      represent a network encapsulation for the multi-segment buffers managed
      by Generic Segment Offload (GSO) and Generic Receive Offload (GRO);
      these buffers are now known as "parcel buffers" or simply "parcels"
      which become "IP parcels" following encapsulation in {TCP,UDP}/IP
      headers.</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 non-final segments must be
      equal in length while the final segment must not be larger. 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
      either performs packetization to forward each segment as an individual
      IPv6 packet or appends a parcel integrity block preceded by a single
      {TCP,UDP} header and a single IPv6 header plus extensions that
      identify this as a parcel and not an ordinary packet. Any included
      {TCP,UDP} options are associated with all segments, therefore parcels
      may only include segments that employ compatible options.</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-6man-omni3"/>
      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 adaptation layer IPv6 reassembly if necessary, an
      egress OMNI interface applies 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. Loss or receipt of individual segments (rather
      than parcel size) therefore determines the retransmission unit.</t>

      <t>This document further introduces an "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" service
      that provides essential extensions beyond the basic IPv6 jumbograms
      defined in <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs are parcel variants that
      provide end and intermediate systems with a robust delivery 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 adopting parcels
      and AJs as core elements of the Internet architecture, as well as
      the actual protocol constructs and operational procedures involved.
      Parcels and AJs provide essential data transit 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 for Internetworking performance
      maximization.</t>
    </section>

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

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

      <t>The term "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" refers to a parcel variation
      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
      true parcels and other jumbogram types by including an "Advanced
      Jumbo Type" value 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>The term "link" is defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> as:
      "a communication facility or medium over which nodes can communicate
      at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IPv6. Examples
      are Ethernets (simple or bridged); PPP links; X.25, Frame Relay, or
      ATM networks; and internet-layer or higher-layer "tunnels", such as
      tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself".</t>

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

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

      <t>Where the document refers to checksum calculations, it means the
      standard Internet checksum unless otherwise specified. The same as
      for TCP <xref target="RFC9293"/> and UDP <xref target="RFC0768"/>,
      the standard Internet checksum is defined as (sic) "the 16-bit one's
      complement of the one's complement sum of all (pseudo-)headers plus
      data, padded with zero octets at the end (if necessary) to make a
      multiple of two octets". A notional Internet checksum algorithm can
      be found in <xref target="RFC1071"/>, 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 (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 included as an integrity header and submitted
      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-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
      packetization or parcellation if necessary) with segment lengths no larger
      than can transit the link.</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. The "Parcel Path MTU"
      value returned during parcel path qualification determines the
      maximum sized parcel/AJ that can transit the leading portion of
      the path up to a router that cannot forward the parcel/AJ further,
      while the "Residual Path MTU" determines the maximum-sized
      conventional packet that can transit the remainder of the path
      following packetization. (Note that for paths that include a
      significant number of routers that do not recognize the parcel
      construct the Residual Path MTU may be over-estimated.)</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/AJ 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 standard
      practice, parcel packetization and restoration are functional
      equivalents of the well-known 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 standard <xref target="RFC8200"/>.
      In particular, OMNI interfaces support IPv6 encapsulation and
      fragmentation as an adaptation layer process that can transit
      packet/parcel/AJ sizes that exceed the underlying Internetwork
      path MTU. OMNI interface fragmentation/reassembly occurs at a
      lower layer of the protocol stack than packetization/restoration
      and/or parcellation/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-6man-aero3"/> and the "Overlay Multilink Network
      Interface (OMNI)" <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> provide an
      adaptation layer framework for transmission of parcels/AJs over one or
      more concatenated Internetworks. AERO/OMNI will provide an operational
      environment for parcels/AJs beginning from the earliest deployment
      phases and extending indefinitely to accommodate continuous future
      growth. As more and more parcel/AJ-capable links are enabled (e.g.,
      in data centers, wireless edge networks, space-domain optical links,
      etc.) AERO/OMNI will continue to provide an essential service for
      Internetworking performance maximization.</t>

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

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

      <t>The "Parcel Integrity Block (PIB)" follows the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      headers of each parcel/AJ. For parcels, the PIB includes a 1-octet
      field that encodes the number of segments included followed by
      integrity check fields (and for TCP also a Sequence Number) for
      each of the segments that follow. For AJs, the PIB includes
      only the integrity check fields.</t>

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

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

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

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs are modeled 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 an adaptation of the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-By-Hop
      Option <xref target="RFC9268"/> instead of the basic IPv6 Jumbo
      Payload Option <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs are not limited only to segment sizes that
      exceed 65535 octets; instead, parcels can be as small as the
      packet and parcel headers plus a singleton segment while
      AJs can be as small as the headers plus a NULL payload. IPv6
      parcels/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 implementations
      MUST silently ignore any IPv6 (Extended) Fragment Headers in
      IPv6 parcels and AJs.</t>

      <t>For further Hop-by-Hop Options considerations, see: <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing"/>. For IPv6 extension
      header limits, see: <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits"/>.
      For IPv4 parcel and advanced jumbo considerations, see:
      <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2"/>.</t>

      <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. However, the
      most prominent performance increases were observed by increasing the
      transport layer protocol segment size even if doing so invoked network
      layer fragmentation.</t>

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

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

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

      <t>A limiting consideration for sending large packets is that they are
      often lost at links with MTU restrictions, and the resulting Packet Too
      Big (PTB) messages <xref target="RFC4443"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> may
      be lost somewhere in the return path to the original source. This path
      MTU "black hole" condition can 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 Networking (DTN) Link Model">
      <t>The classic Internetworking link service model requires each link
      in the path to apply a link-layer integrity check often termed a "Frame
      Check Sequence (FCS)" over the entire length of the frame. The link near-end
      calculates and appends an FCS trailer to each packet pending transmission,
      and the link far-end verifies the FCS upon packet reception. If verification
      fails, the link far-end unconditionally discards the packet. This process
      is repeated for each link in the path so that only packets that pass all
      link-layer checks over their full lengths are delivered to the final
      destination. (Note that Internet- or higher-layer tunnels may traverse
      many underlying physical links that each apply their own FCS in series.)</t>

      <t>While the classic link model has contributed to the unparalleled
      success of terrestrial Internetworks (including the global public
      Internet), new uses in which significant delays or disruptions can
      occur are not as well supported. For example, a path that 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 integrity checking as a last resort. 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/AJs that engage this DTN link model include a
      limited hop-by-hop integrity check that covers only the headers
      plus a leading portion of the payload. Each IPv6 parcel/AJ also
      includes per-segment end-to-end Cyclic Redundancy Checks (CRCs)
      or message digests plus Internet checksums to be verified
      by the final destination. For each parcel/AJ admitted under the
      DTN link model, the original source applies Forward Error Correction
      (FEC) encoding <xref target="RFC5052"/><xref target="RFC5445"/>
      if necessary. Each link near-end in the path then applies its
      standard link-layer FCS for only the leading portion upon
      transmission as indicated by the IPv6 Payload Length then
      writes the FCS as a trailer following the end of the
      parcel/AJ payload.</t>

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

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

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

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs therefore provide a revolutionary
      advancement for delay/disruption tolerance in air/land/sea/space
      mobile Internetworking applications. As the Internet continues to
      evolve from its more stable fixed terrestrial network origins to
      one where more and more nodes operate in the mobile edge, this
      new link service model relocates bulk error detection and
      correction responsibilities from intermediate systems to end
      systems that are uniquely capable of taking 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 require extensions 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 concatenating "J" transport layer protocol segments
      (for J between 1 and 64) into a contiguous buffer or chain of smaller
      buffers. All non-final segments MUST be of equal length "L" while
      the final segment of length "K" MUST NOT be larger and MAY be
      smaller. The overall parcel length (including headers) is then
      represented by the value "M".</t>

      <t>The transport layer protocol entity sets L to a 16-bit
      non-final segment length that MUST be no smaller than 256 octets
      and no larger than 65535 octets minus the lengths of the {TCP,UDP}
      header (plus options) and IPv6 header (plus extensions) (see:
      <xref target="borderline"/>). The transport layer protocol entity
      then presents the buffer(s) and non-final segment length 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 appends a
      Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) that includes a Number of Segments
      (Nsegs) value plus CRC code followed by J segment integrity
      blocks consisting of a 0/4/8-octet CRC followed by a 2-octet
      Internet Checksum followed by a 4-octet Sequence Number for
      each TCP segment. Nsegs encodes the number of segments
      (for J between 1 and 64) and CRC is set to 0 for no CRC, 1
      for CRC-32 or 2 for CRC-64 (CRC value 3 is reserved). The PIB
      is formatted as shown in <xref target="pcb"/>:

      <figure anchor="pcb"
              title="Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                   |   Nsegs   |CRC|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      CRC (0) (0/4/8 octets)                   ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Checksum (0) (2 octets)                  ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~            Sequence Number (0) (4 octets - TCP Only)          ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      CRC (1) (0/4/8 octets)                   ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                     Checksum (1) (2 octets)                   ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~            Sequence Number (1) (4 octets - TCP Only)          ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                     CRC (J-1) (0/4/8 octets)                  ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Checksum (J-1) (2 octets)                  ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~           Sequence Number (J-1) (4 octets - TCP Only)         ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The network layer then appends a single full {TCP,UDP} header
      (plus options) and a single full IPv6 header including an IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop Options extension header with a Parcel Payload Option
      formatted 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     |    Parcel Control (16 bits)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |X|S|        Parcel Payload Length (24 bits)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></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 12. The length also distinguishes this
      format from its use as the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop
      Option <xref target="RFC9268"/>. The network layer then sets
      the IPv6 Payload Length field to the length of the leading
      portion of the parcel subject to hop-by-hop integrity checks
      and sets Parcel Control to L. The network layer next sets
      Parcel Payload Length to a 24-bit value M that encodes the
      length of the IPv6 extension headers plus the length of the
      {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) plus the length of the PIB
      plus the combined lengths of all concatenated segments. Note
      that in this arrangement the IPv6 Payload Length determines
      the leading length of the parcel subject to link layer FCS
      protection while the Parcel Payload Length determines the
      end of the parcel payload after which the link layer appends
      the trailing FCS itself.</t>  

      <t>The network layer next sets Index to an ordinal parcel
      segment "Index" value between 0 and 63 to identify the
      initial segment index for the (sub-)parcel and sets the
      "More (S)egments" flag to 1 for non-final sub-parcels or
      0 for the final (sub-)parcel. The network layer next sets
      the "e(X)treme" flag to 0 unless otherwise specified (see:
      <xref target="jij"/>). The network layer finally includes
      a 4-octet Identification, sets Code to 255 and sets Check
      to the same value that will appear in the IPv6 header Hop
      Limit field on transmission (see: <xref target="probe"/>).
      These values provide hop-by-hop assurance that previous
      hops correctly process parcels 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           ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~   
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~         More Segments        ~   ~         More Segments        ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
                                      ~  UDP Options / Option Length ~
                                      +------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

    <section anchor="tcp-parcel" title="TCP Parcels">
      <t>A TCP 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 (2**24 - 1) octets. The IPv6 header
      plus extensions is then followed by a TCP header plus
      options (20 or more octets) followed by a PIB followed by
      J consecutive segments. 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 Parcel Control 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>For each Segment(i) (for i between 0 and (J-1)), the source
      next populates the PIB by calculating the Internet checksum
      beginning with Sequence Number(i) and extending over the
      length of Segment(i), then writes the value into the Checksum(i)
      field. When CRC is 1/2, the source then calculates the CRC-32/64
      beginning with Checksum(i) then extending over both Sequence
      Number(i) and the length of Segment(i), then writes the value
      into CRC(i).</t>

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

      <t>Note: The parcel TCP header Source Port, Destination Port and
      (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>
    </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 (2**24 - 1) octets. The IPv6 header plus extensions
      is then followed by an 8-octet UDP header followed by a PIB followed
      by J transport layer segments followed by any UDP options. 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 Parcel Control 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"/> by setting the UDP header
      Length field to the length of the UDP header plus the lengths of
      the PIB plus all parcel segments. If this length exceeds 65535
      octets, the source instead sets UDP Length to 0 and includes a
      2-octet trailing "UDP Option Length" field that encodes the length
      of the UDP options which immediately precede it, i.e., excluding
      the length of the UDP Option Length field itself. (If there are
      no UDP options the UDP Option Length field encodes the value 0.)</t>

      <t>If UDP checksums are enabled, the source then calculates the
      checksum of the UDP header plus IPv6 pseudo-header (see: <xref
      target="integrity"/>) while writing calculated 0 values as '0xffff'.
      If UDP checksums are disabled, the source instead writes the value
      '0'.</t>

      <t>For each Segment(i), the source next populates the PIB. If
      UDP checksums are disabled, the source writes the value 0 into
      the Checksum(i) field; otherwise, the source calculates the
      Internet checksum over the length of Segment(i) and writes the
      value into the Checksum(i) field while rewriting calculated 0
      values as '0xffff'. When CRC is 1/2, the source then calculates
      the CRC-32/64 beginning with Checksum(i) and extending over the
      length of Segment(i), then writes the value into CRC(i). For
      the final segment, the source also extends the CRC calculation
      over the length of the segment to also include the UDP options
      plus UDP Option Length field when either or both are present.
      (Note that the length of the UDP Option Length field itself
      is also included in the Parcel Payload Length.)</t>

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

    <section anchor="j-k-calc" title="Calculating K">
      <t>The parcel source unambiguously encodes the values J, L and
      M in parcel header fields as specified above. The value K is
      not encoded in a header and must therefore be calculated by
      intermediate and final destination nodes. K is calculated simply
      as the remainder of the Parcel Payload Length M minus the length
      of the IPv6 header extensions minus the length of the {TCP,UDP}
      header (plus options) minus the length of the PIB minus the
      lengths of all concatenated non-final segments (L * (J-1)).</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 sets Hop Limit to the Parcel Limit value discovered
      through probing (see: <xref target="probe"/>), sets X to 0 for
      normal or 1 for "e(X)treme path" OMNI link traversal and also
      sets Parcel Control to L (between 256 and 65535) to distinguish
      the parcel from other jumbogram types (see: <xref target="jumbo"/>).</t>

      <t>The source also maintains a randomly-initialized 4-octet
      (32-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**32) 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 Parcel
      Payload Option.</t>

      <t>The source finally populates {TCP,UDP} header and option
      fields, includes a populated PIB then 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 attempt to forward
      it as a (truncated) packet, where the IPv6 Payload Length
      determines a likely truncation length.</t>

      <t>Most importantly, each parcel-capable link in the path forwards
      parcels/AJs with integrity-checked headers even if the remainder
      of the payload accumulated link errors since each segment is
      responsible for its own end-to-end integrity. 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/AJ it verifies only the leading portion of the
      parcel/AJ header before forwarding to the next hop while leaving
      integrity assurance for the remainder as an end-to-end service
      (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).</t>

      <t>When the next hop link does not support parcels at all, the
      source breaks the parcel up into individual IPv6 packets. 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 smaller sub-parcels. In the first case, the source can
      apply packetization (i.e., GSO), and the final destination can
      apply restoration (i.e., 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/AJs include "Parcel Path MTU" and "Residual Path MTU"
      fields as discussed in <xref target="probe"/>. Each router in
      the path may rewrite the fields to progressively smaller values
      in a similar fashion as for <xref target="RFC9268"/>. The fact
      that the probe transited a previous hop link provides sufficient
      evidence of forward progress since path MTU determination is
      unidirectional in the forward path only. Following successful
      parcel probing, each parcel/AJ transmission may include
      {TCP,UDP} segment size probes used for packetization layer
      path MTU discovery per <xref target="RFC4821"/><xref target=
      "RFC8899"/>. Such probes may be necessary to refine the
      Residual Path MTU, for which parcel probes can only provide
      an estimate.</t>

      <t>When a router or destination receives a parcel (or parcel probe)
      it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IPv6 header Hop
      Limit; if either value differs, the node drops the parcel and returns
      a negative Jumbo Report (see: <xref target="report"/>) subject
      to rate limiting. For all other intact parcels, each 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 forward the parcel to the
      next hop while decrementing both Check and the IPv6 header Hop Limit
      field by 1.</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, the source or router (i.e., the node) invokes
      packetization the same as for GSO. Routers also invoke packetization
      if decrementing the parcel Hop Limit would cause it to become 0.
      Otherwise, the node forwards the intact (sub-)parcel or performs
      parcellation (see: <xref target="probe"/> for discussion of Parcel
      Limit).</t>

      <t>To initiate 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 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 PIB while retaining the
      PIB contents for integrity reference. If CRC=1/2, the node then
      verifies the CRCs of each segment(i) (for i between 0 and (J-1))
      and discards any segment(i)'s with incorrect CRCs. The node then
      copies the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers followed by segment (i) into
      J individual packets ("packet(i)"). Each such packet(i) will
      be subject to the independent link-layer 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,UDP} options
      that are permitted to appear in data segments in all but packet(0)
      which may also include control segment options (see: <xref
      target="extend"/> for further discussion). The 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 Parameters
      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="{TCP,UDP} Parcel Parameters Option">
        <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Index  |R|S|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The node includes the Parcel Parameters Option in the
      TCP header or UDP trailer 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 ExID to TBD1 (see:
      IANA Considerations). The node includes the Identification
      values found in the original parcel header, then sets Index
      to 'i' and sets S to 1 for non-final packet(i)'s or to 0 for
      the final packet(i) of the final (sub-)parcel. (For single
      segment parcels and AJs, the node instead sets Index and
      S to 0.)</t>

      <t>For each IPv6 packet, the node then sets Hop Limit to a
      conservative value that allows for sufficient conventional
      IPv6 forwarding hops along the residual path from the node
      performing packetization to the final destination while
      still providing an adequate termination count to protect
      against routing loops.</t>

      <t>For each TCP/IPv6 packet, the node next sets Payload Length
      according to <xref target="RFC8200"/> then calculates/sets the
      checksum for the packet according to <xref target="RFC9293"/>.
      For each UDP/IPv6 packet, the node instead sets the Payload
      Length and UDP length fields then calculates/sets the checksum
      according to <xref target="RFC0768"/>. The node reuses the
      PIB checksum value for each segment in the checksum calculation
      process.</t>

      <t>The node first calculates the Internet checksum over the
      new packet {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers (with Sequence Number set
      to 0 for TCP) then adds the cached segment checksum value. For
      TCP, the node finally writes the PIB Sequence Number value for
      each segment into the TCP Sequence Number field. 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.
      The node then forwards each IPv6 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 as large as
      the Residual 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 drops the parcel. 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.</t>

      <t>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. The node also includes a PIB in each sub-parcel that
      contains the corresponding CRC, Checksum and Sequence Number fields for its
      included segments (where the per-segment fields of the sub-parcel PIB are
      copied from the PIB of the original 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, and Parcel Payload
      Length in each as above. The node also sets the Hop Limit
      in each sub-parcel to the same value that occurred in the
      original (sub-)parcel.</t>

      <t>For TCP, the node then clears the TCP control bits in all but
      the first sub-parcel and includes only those {TCP,UDP} options
      that are permitted to appear in data segments in all but the
      first sub-parcel (which may also include control segment options).
      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 can accommodate all
      parcel sizes. 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-6man-omni3"/>.</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 and Parcel Payload Length 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 PIBs 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 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 and Parcel Payload Length 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>

      <t>Note: If the original source selects the "e(X)treme path"
      for OMNI link traversal, the OMNI interface forwards the
      entire parcel as a (giant) singleton carrier packet using
      jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation instead of applying adaptation
      layer parcellation as discussed in <xref target="jij"/>.</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 the same as for Generic Receive Offload. The 5-tuple
      information plus the Parcel Parameters Option values included
      by the source during packetization (see: <xref target="new-tcp"/>)
      provide unambiguous context for GRO restoration which practical
      implementations have proven as a robust service at high data rates.</t>

      <t>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, 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 upper layers (e.g., via 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 Path Probing">
      <t>Unless there is operational assurance that all routers and
      destinations in the network will recognize parcel/AJ constructs,
      the original source should send an initial probe to determine
      whether parcels/AJs can transit at least an initial portion of the
      forward path toward the final destination. The original source
      prepares an ordinary IPv6 packet with an alternate encoding of
      the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Option that contains Parcel Probe
      parameters as shown in <xref target="parcel-probe"/>:
      <figure anchor="parcel-probe" title="Parcel Probe Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  | Opt Data Len  |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |  Parcel Limit |  Reserved |O|X|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The IPv6 packet can be either a purpose-built probe or part
      of an existing transport protocol session, but it should cause
      the destination to return a responsive {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet
      with authenticating  credentials and with a Parcel Probe
      Reply Option - see below. (Note that the probe must appear in
      an ordinary IPv6 packet and not a parcel/AJ to ensure that it
      will traverse the entire path to the destination.)</t>

      <t>The source sets the IPv6 probe Hop Limit to a sufficiently
      large value to allow the probe to traverse the path. The source
      then sets Payload Length the same as for an ordinary IPv6 packet.
      The source next sets "Option Type" to '0x30' the same as for the
      Parcel Payload Option, sets "Option Data Len" to 14, sets Code
      to 255 and sets Check to the same value as Hop Limit.</t>

      <t>Next, the source sets Parcel Path MTU to the 32-bit MTU
      of the outgoing (parcel-capable) interface for the probe, sets
      Residual Path MTU to the 16-bit value 'ffff', and sets
      Identification to a 32-bit identification value for the next
      packet/parcel/AJ to be sent to this destination. The source
      then sets the Parcel Limit, Reserved and O fields all to 0,
      and sets the X flag to 1 if it is probing the "e(X)treme path"
      for OMNI links (see below). The source finally adds any padding
      options necessary for 8-octet alignment and sends the packet
      to the next hop.</t>

      <t>Each node in the path that observes this specification
      (including IPv6 routers and the final destination itself) examines
      the packet and processes the Parcel Probe Option as follows:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>If Code is 255 and Check contains the same value as the IPv6 header
        Hop Limit, then set Parcel Path MTU to the minimum of its current
        value, the previous hop link MTU, and the node's own receive buffer
        size (but no smaller than the IPv6 minimum MTU <xref target=
        "RFC8200"/>). Next increment Parcel Limit by 1 and, if the
        previous hop link was an OMNI link, set the O flag to 1. Then
        (for routers) forward the probe to the next hop while
        decrementing Hop Limit by 1 and setting Check to the new
        Hop Limit value.</t>

        <t>If Code is not 255 or Check contains a different value than the
        IPv6 header Hop Limit, then set Residual Path MTU to the minimum of
        its current value, the previous hop link MTU, and the node's own
        receive buffer size (but no smaller than the IPv6 minimum MTU <xref
        target="RFC8200"/>). Then, (for routers) forward the probe to the
        next hop while decrementing Hop Limit by 1 and setting Check
        to 255.</t>
      </list></t>

      <t>When the destination receives the probe, it performs the above
      operations and also sets Residual Path MTU to 0 if Code is 255 and
      Check contains the same value as the IPv6 header Hop Limit. The
      destination then returns a responsive {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet that
      includes a Parcel Probe Reply Option as a {TCP,UDP} option
      formatted as shown in <xref target="parcel-mtu"/>.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="parcel-mtu" title="{TCP,UDP} Parcel Probe Reply Option">
      <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |  Parcel Limit |  Reserved |O|X|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The destination 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 destination
      then sets Parcel Path MTU, Residual Path MTU, Parcel Limit,
      Reserved, O, X and Identification to the values included in
      the probe, i.e., after its own local probe processing as
      discussed above. The destination then includes any additional
      identifying parameters (such as authentication codes) in the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet and returns the packet to the source
      while discarding the probe.</t>

      <t>The original source can therefore send parcel probes in the
      same packets used to carry real data. The probes will transit
      all routers on the forward path possibly extending all the way
      to the destination. If the source receives a probe reply, it
      authenticates the message and matches the Identification value
      with one of its previous probes. If a match is confirmed, then
      the Parcel Probe Reply Option will contain all information
      necessary for the source to use in its future parcel/AJ
      transmissions to this destination.</t>

      <t>In particular, the Parcel Path MTU determines the
      largest-size parcel/AJ that can transit the leading portion of
      the path up to a point that packetization would be necessary.
      If the O flag is set and X is clear, then the maximum-sized
      AJ is limited to 65535 octets while parcels as large as the
      Parcel Path MTU can be accommodated; if both the O and X
      flags are set, then the maximum-sized AJ is also bounded by
      the Parcel Path MTU which may exceed 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>If Residual Path MTU is non-zero, its value determines
      the maximum-sized packet that can transit the remainder of the path
      following packetization noting that the maximum packet size may
      be smaller still if there are routers in the probed path that do
      not recognize the protocol. (Note that a Residual Path MTU value
      of 0 instead indicates that the path is parcel-capable in all
      hops from the source to the destination.) Finally, Parcel Limit
      contains the value the source must place in the IPv6 Hop Limit
      field of future parcels/AJ transmissions to this destination.</t>

      <t>All routers and destinations within a controlled environment /
      limited domain are expected to forward or accept packets with IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop Options extension headers without dropping them, i.e.,
      even if they ignore the option contents. Conversely, for open
      Internetworks outside of a controlled environment / limited domain
      some paths may be unable to transit IPv6 packets that contain
      Hop-by-Hop Options extension headers.</t>

      <t>Sources that connect to open Internetworks should therefore
      send "augmented" probes that include a UDP header inserted
      between the IPv6 header and the Hop-by-Hop Options extension
      header. The source next rewrites the Hop-by-Hop Options Next
      Header field per Section 6.4 of <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> with the "Type" component set
      to OMNI-HBH and with the "Next" component set to the value
      for the next header that follows (e.g., OMNI-TCP, OMNI-UDP,
      etc.). Next, the source sets the IPv6 Next Header field to
      UDP ("17"), sets the UDP port numbers to OMNI ("8060"),
      calculates and sets the UDP Checksum, then sends the
      prepared probe to the destination.</t>

      <t>This implies that all routers that recognize parcels/AJs and
      all destinations that accept them must be capable of accepting
      and processing the contents of these OMNI protocol UDP messages
      as though they arrived as ordinary probes. Such routers and
      destinations must therefore implement enough of the OMNI
      interface to be able to recognize and process the messages.</t>

      <t>When there may be one or more OMNI links in the path, the
      source can optionally send probes that test and measure the
      OMNI link "e(X)treme path" which uses jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation
      instead of IP fragmentation (see: <xref target="jij"/>). In one
      approach, the source can first send probes with the X flag set
      to 0. If the probe reply returns with the O flag set to 1, and
      if jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation is needed (e.g., to forward very
      large AJs and parcels at extreme data rates), the source can
      next send probes with the X flag set to 1. The source can then
      remember the MTU and Parcel Limit values for both types of probes,
      and can subsequently send smaller parcels/AJs using the first
      set of parameters while sending larger parcels/AJs using the
      second set of parameters.</t>

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

    <section anchor="report" title="Parcel/Jumbo Reports">
      <t>When the destination returns a Parcel/Jumbo Report, it
      packages the report as a {TCP,UDP} option in a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      packet to return to the source the same as for a Parcel
      Probe Reply (see: <xref target="parcel-mtu"/>). For a positive
      report, the destination may set Parcel Path MTU and Residual Path
      MTU to smaller values that reflect its (reduced) receive buffer
      size. For a negative report, the destination instead sets Parcel
      Path MTU, Residual MTU and Parcel Limit to 0 as an indication
      to the source that the path must be re-probed before sending
      additional parcels/AJs.</t>

      <t>When a router 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 router 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.</t>

      <t>The router 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
      the IPv6 Minimum MTU. The router then calculates and sets the
      Checksum field the same as for an ordinary ICMPv6 message then
      sends the prepared Parcel/Jumbo Report to the original source
      of the probe.</t>

      <t>This implies that original sources that send parcels/AJs
      must be capable of accepting and processing Parcel/Jumbo
      reports (formatted as above) with coming from either a router
      or the final destination.</t>
 
      <t>Note: For positive Parcel/Jumbo reports, the source can continue
      sending parcels/AJs into the path with its segment sizes reduced
      accordingly. For negative Parcel/Jumbo reports, the source should
      instead re-probe the path before sending additional parcels/AJs.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

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

      <t>The AJ service employs the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Parcel Payload
      Option the same as for IP Parcels; it sets Opt Data Len to 12
      but replaces the 3-octet Parcel Payload Length field plus
      1-octet preamble by a 4-octet Jumbo Payload Length field
      as shown in <xref target="jumbo-probe"/>:

      <figure anchor="jumbo-probe"
              title="Parcel Payload Option for Advanced Jumbos">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Code     |     Check     |    Parcel Control (16 bits)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Jumbo Payload Length (32 bits)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source forms {TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJs by setting the most
      significant octet of the Parcel Control field to 0 and
      treating the least significant octet of the field as an
      "Advanced Jumbo (AJ) Format" octet as shown in <xref
      target="aj-fmt"/>:

      <figure anchor="aj-fmt"
              title="Parcel Control for Advanced Jumbos">
          <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       0       |X| FEC | Digest|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   <-- AJ Format -->]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>In the AJ Format octet, the source sets "X" to 0 for classic
      OMNI link traversal or 1 for "e(X)treme path" traversal. The source
      then sets "FEC" to 0 for "Non-FEC" or 1 for "IANA FEC" (other values
      may be specified in future documents) and sets "Digest" to one of
      the CRC/digest types found in <xref target="adv-jumbo-digest"/>.
      Implementations MUST support the following integrity checking
      algorithms identified by "Digest":

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

      <t>If FEC is 1, the source includes an "IANA FEC Header" as
      the first 4 octets of the AJ Payload as shown in <xref
      target="fec-details"/>:

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

      <t>The source sets FEC Scheme, FEC Instance and FEC Framework
      according to the appropriate registry values found in <xref
      target="IANA-FEC"/> and sets Reserved to 0.</t>

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

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

      <t>The source then sets the IPv6 Payload Length to the length of the
      leading portion of the AJ to be covered by hop-by-hop FCS integrity
      checks noting that the remainder of the AJ will be covered only by
      end-to-end integrity checks after FEC is applied if necessary. The
      source next forms the {TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJ the same as for parcels
      as shown in <xref target="struct"/> except that the PIB is
      followed by only a single segment ("Segment 0") and (for TCP)
      Sequence Number appears in the TCP header the same as for an
      ordinary TCP/IP packet. Unlike parcels, the AJ PIB CRC/Digest
      field can also be larger than 8 octets according to the length
      of the selected Digest. UDP AJs set the UDP Length field the
      same as specified for UDP parcels, and include a trailing
      UDP Option Length field if and only if the UDP length field
      encodes 0. (Note that the length of the UDP Option Length
      field itself is also included in the Jumbo Payload Length.)</t>

      <t>The source then includes a CRC/Digest in the AJ PIB for CRC-32,
      CRC-64, MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref target="RFC3174"/>
      or the advanced US Secure Hash Algorithms <xref target="RFC6234"/>
      according the to AJ Digest field value. (An AJ Digest value is
      also reserved by IANA as a non-functional placeholder for a nominal
      CRC128J algorithm, which may be specified in future documents;
      see: <xref target="crc128j"/>.)</t>

      <t>The source then sets the Identification the same as for a
      parcel, sets Code to 255 and sets Check and Hop Limit to the
      Parcel Limit for this destination (see: <xref target="probe"/>).
      The source next calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum based on the
      same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see: <xref target=
      "pseudo"/>) but with the 3-octet Parcel Payload Length field plus
      1-octet preamble replaced with a 4-octet Jumbo Payload Length
      field and with Parcel Control encoding the AJ Format Octet;
      see above.</t>

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

      <t>At each forwarding hop, the router examines Code and Check
      then drops the AJ and returns a negative Jumbo Report if either
      value is incorrect. (Note that the AJ may also have been truncated
      in length by a previous-hop router that does not recognize the
      construct.) For all other intact AJs with FEC set to 0, if
      decrementing would cause the Hop Limit to become 0 the router
      performs packetization to convert the AJ into a packet the same
      as specified for parcels (see: <xref target="xmit-singleton"/>)
      and forwards the packet to the next hop. Otherwise, the router
      decrements both Hop Limit and Check by 1 and forwards the intact
      AJ to the next hop.</t>

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

      <t>Note: If the original source selects the "e(X)treme path"
      for OMNI link traversal, the OMNI interface forwards the intact
      AJ as a carrier packet using jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation
      instead of applying adaptation layer IP fragmentation. These
      jumbo carrier packets are then subject to best-effort delivery
      over the (previously-probed) path. The original source may select
      "e(X)treme" for any parcel/AJ, but must select "e(X)treme" for
      all AJs larger than 65535 octets - see: <xref target="jij"/>.</t>

      <t>Note: AJs that do not require an Identification can simply
      set the Identification field to 0.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="jij" title="OMNI Interface Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
      <t>OMNI interfaces can process parcels of all sizes as well as AJs
      as large as 65535 octets according to normal OMNI link parcellation,
      encapsulation and fragmentation procedures. For larger AJs as well
      as for parcels that may experience better performance by avoiding
      parcellation and fragmentation, the original source can instead
      select OMNI link "e(X)treme path" traversal. For probes/parcels/AJs
      that select the "e(X)treme path", the source sends the probe/parcel/AJ
      via the first-hop link under standard procedures specified in previous
      sections with standard IP forwarding providing service for each
      successive link up to the OMNI link ingress. When the probe/parcel/AJ
      arrives at the OMNI link ingress, the X flag provides an indication
      that "e(X)treme path" OMNI link traversal is desired as follows.</t>

      <t>For parcel/AJ probes, the OMNI link ingress first verifies
      that all previous hops were jumbo-capable by examining the Code
      and Check values. If Code or Check are incorrect, the OMNI link
      ingress clears the X flag and forwards the probe using normal
      OMNI encapsulation. If Code and Check are both correct, the
      OMNI link ingress instead inserts the OMNI and L2 encapsulations
      as specified in <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> then
      performs "jumbo-in-jumbo" encapsulation by copying the (L3)
      Parcel Probe Option Hop-by-Hop extension header from the
      original IPv6 probe packet into the L2 headers as shown in <xref
      target="jij-struct"/>. The OMNI link ingress then calculates the
      UDP checksum over the entire length of the encapsulated probe (as
      the UDP payload) and writes the value into the L2 UDP checksum
      field. Each L2 forwarding hop in the path to the next OAL
      intermediate node will then process the probe exactly as
      specified in <xref target="probe"/>, where each parcel/AJ
      capable hop adjusts the Code, Check, Parcel Path MTU and
      Parcel Limit fields then re-calculates/re-sets the L2 UDP
      checksum.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="jij-struct" title="Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
     Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel Probe            Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~        L2 UDP header         ~   ~        L2 UDP header         ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       L2 Parcel Probe        ~   ~   L2 Advanced Jumbo Type 0   ~   
   |         HBH option           |   |         HBH option           |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       OMNI IPv6 Header       ~   ~       OMNI IPv6 Header       ~
   |       plus extensions        |   |        plus extensions       |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~         L3 IPv6 Hdr          ~   ~          L3 IPv6 Hdr         ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       L3 Parcel Probe        ~   ~          L3 Parcel           ~
   |         HBH option           |   |         HBH option           |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~
   ~          packet body         ~   ~        parcel/AJ body        ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
]]></artwork></figure></t>
 
      <t>When each successive OAL intermediate node receives the parcel
      probe, it propagates the Parcel Probe Option Hop-by-Hop extension
      header into the L2 headers for the next OAL hop while updating the
      probe parameters the same as for an ordinary IP forwarding hop. When
      the OAL destination receives the parcel probe, it first verifies
      that all previous hops were jumbo-capable by examining the Code
      and Check values. If Code or Check are incorrect, the OAL destination
      drops the probe and returns a negative Jumbo Report to the OAL source,
      which then returns a negative Jumbo Report to the original source.
      Otherwise, the OAL destination removes the L2 and OAL headers while
      copying the L2 probe parameters into the L3 Parcel Probe Option
      (with the L2 encapsulation header lengths subtracted from the
      Parcel Path MTU).</t>

      <t>The OAL destination then forwards the probe to the next hop
      toward the final destination. If the probe traverses the entire
      path to the final destination, the Parcel Path MTU will contain
      the minimum MTU and the Parcel Limit will contain the total
      number of parcel/AJ-capable L2/L3 hops between the source and
      destination. (Note that the Residual Path MTU may also indicate
      that the final portion of the path is not parcel/AJ capable even
      though the leading portion of the path was.) The destination
      will then return a probe reply to the source, and if the X flag
      is set the source can begin sending parcels/AJs with the X flag
      set to enable the OMNI link "e(X)treme path".</t>

      <t>If the source receives an intact probe reply with X flag set,
      it can use the enclosed Parcel Path MTU, Residual Path MTU and
      Parcel Limit values to prepare future parcels/AJs for transmission
      via the "e(X)treme path" by setting the X flag. Each L3 forwarding
      hop in the path from the original source to the OMNI link ingress
      then forwards the parcel/AJ the same as for the standard procedures
      specified in previous sections.</t>

      <t>When the OMNI link ingress receives a parcel/AJ with the X
      flag set, it performs "jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation" by leaving
      the L3 parcel/AJ headers intact, then appending OMNI adaptation
      layer IPv6 encapsulations plus L2 encapsulations that include a
      Parcel Payload Option with Advanced Jumbo Type 0 (but without
      including a segment checksum field as for {TCP,UDP} AJs) in either
      a full or minimal AJ extension header as an L2 extension. The OMNI
      link ingress sets the Jumbo Payload Length field to the length of
      the L2 extension headers (including the L2 UDP header, if present)
      plus the lengths of the OMNI IPv6 encapsulation header and the L3
      packet (including all L3 headers). The OMNI link ingress sets all
      other OMNI and L2 encapsulation header fields as specified in <xref
      target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>. The parcel/AJ "jumbo-in-jumbo"
      encapsulation format is shown in <xref target="jij-struct"/>.</t>

      <t>The OMNI link ingress then calculates the L2 UDP checksum
      over the L2 UDP/IP pseudo-header and extending to cover the
      OMNI adaptation layers up to but not including the L3 IP
      header, then writes the value into the L2 UDP header checksum
      field. The OMNI link ingress then copies the L3 TTL/Hop Limit
      into the L2 IP header TTL/Hop Limit and forwards the encapsulated
      parcel/AJ to the next L2 hop. When the parcel/AJ arrives at an
      OAL intermediate node, the node discards the L2 headers from
      the previous hop OMNI segment and inserts L2 headers for the
      next hop OMNI segment while updating the OMNI encapsulation
      header fields accordingly (see: <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>). In the process, the OAL intermediate
      node decrements the previous L2 hop TTL/Hop Limit and writes this
      value into the next L2 hop IP header while also transferring the
      previous hop Advanced Jumbo Type 1 header to the next hop L2
      header chain. The node also re-calculates and re-sets the L2
      UDP header checksum before forwarding toward the next OMNI hop.</t>

      <t>When the parcel/AJ arrives at the OAL destination, the OAL
      destination copies the L2 IP TTL/Hop Limit into the L3 IP TTL/Hop
      Limit field, then removes the L2 and OMNI encapsulation headers
      and forwards the packet to the next L3 hop while decrementing
      the IP TTL/Hop Limit by 1 according to standard IP forwarding
      rules. The final destination will then receive the intact
      original parcel/AJ.</t>

      <t>While a probe/parcel/AJ is traversing an OMNI link "e(X)treme
      path", it may encounter an L2 link that does not recognize the
      construct. This may cause a subsequent link to detect a formatting
      error and return a negative Jumbo Report that will be returned to
      a previous hop OAL intermediate node or the OAL source. The OAL
      node that receives the (L2) Jumbo Report must then prepare and
      generate an (L3) Jumbo Report to return to the original source.
      The L3 Jumbo Report contains the leading portion of the L3
      probe/parcel/AJ with the L2 and OMNI headers removed. This will
      provide indication to the original source that the OMNI link
      "e(X)treme path" has failed for this particular transmission.</t>

      <t>Note: If an OMNI link ingress receives an "e(X)treme path" probe
      with an incorrect Code or Check, it clears the X flag and forwards
      the probe as an ordinary IP packet using standard OMNI encapsulation
      and fragmentation since a previous L3 hop was determined to be
      jumbo-incapable yet may be able to perform packetization. This
      is true even if there may be multiple OMNI links in the L3 path,
      where the X flag applies to all OMNI links in the series and
      not just the first.</t>

      <t>Note: The L2 UDP checksum extends over the entire length of
      each jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulated Parcel Probe, but only over
      the L2 and OMNI headers for each jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulated
      parcel/AJ following probing. This is due to the fact that the
      source must disguise the probe as an ordinary IP packet while
      probing is in progress; after probing has converged, subsequent
      parcels/AJs only require an integrity check of the headers.</t>
    </section>

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

      <t>The {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header of each parcel/AJ includes an
      integrity check of the header while the PIB includes integrity
      checks for each segment. The per-segment Checksums/CRCs are
      set by the source and verified by the destination. Note that
      both checks are important (when no other integrity checks are
      present) since there 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 the PIB and 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 noting that for UDP the per-segment Checksum
      value 0 indicates that the segment checksum is disabled. The original
      source calculates the checksum for each segment beginning with the
      first octet of the per-segment Sequence Number (for TCP non-first
      segments) then continuing over the entire segment length.</t>
 
      <t>IPv6 parcels with CRC=1/2 include a CRC-32/64 integrity check
      in the PIB. The original source uses either the CRC32C specification
      <xref target="RFC3385"/> or the CRC64E specification <xref target=
      "ECMA-182"/> and encodes the PIB. AJs that set an Advanced Jumbo
      Type other than NULL instead include either a 4/8 octet CRC or
      an N-octet message digest calculated per <xref target="RFC1321"/>,
      <xref target="RFC3174"/> or <xref target="RFC6234"/> according
      to the hash algorithm assigned to Type.</t>

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

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

      <t><figure anchor="pseudo"
              title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header Formats">
        <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~               IPv6 Source Address (16 octets)                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~             IPv6 Destination Address (16 octets)              ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Parcel/Jumbo Payload Length (4 Octets)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Parcel Control         |      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, the 4-octets of the Parcel Payload
          Length encode the Index/X/S preamble and 24-bit Parcel
          Payload Length as they appear in the Parcel Payload Option
          fields of the same name. For AJs, the Jumbo Payload
          Length encodes the 4-octet Jumbo Payload Length value found
          in the Parcel Payload Option.</t>

          <t>Parcel Control is the value that appears in the
          Parcel Payload Option header.</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 segments in canonical order as a list of
      data buffers. (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 into
      the correct PIB field (or writes the value 0 when UDP
      checksums are disabled).</t>

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

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

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

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

      <t>Note: for AJs, the source performs FEC encoding after calculating
      the CRC/Checksums and the destination performs FEC decoding before
      verifying the CRC/Checksums. This ensures that the source and
      destination work from identical copies of the original packet
      provided any errors incurred in the path were corrected.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>The IANA is instructed to add 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
   ---             ----                         ---------
   3 (suggested)   Parcel Report                [RFCXXXX]
   4 (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 With Errors". The second
      entry sets "Hex Value" to '0x10', "acct" to '00', "chg" to
      '0', "rest" to '10000'  and Description to "Parcel With
      Errors". Both entries set "Reference" to this document
      [RFCXXXX].</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 Parameters" 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>

      <t>Finally, the IANA is instructed to create and maintain a new
      registry titled "IPv6 Parcel and Advanced Jumbo Formats and Types"
      as follows:</t>

      <t>For IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the 'Opt Data Len'
      field of the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Option <xref target="RFC9268"/>
      serves as an "Option Format" code that distinguishes the various option
      formats specified in this document. Initial values are given below:
      <figure anchor="ipv6-format" title="IPv6 Parcel Option Formats">
            <artwork><![CDATA[   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------  
   0-3         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   4           IPv6 Minimum Path MTU           [RFC9268]
   5-11        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   12          Parcel Payload                  [RFCXXXX]
   13          Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   14          Parcel Probe                    [RFCXXXX]
   15-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>For IPv6 Advanced Jumbos, when the most significant octet
      of the Parcel Payload Option Parcel Control field encodes
      the value 0, the least significant 4 bits of the field encode
      an "Advanced Jumbo Type" value. The IANA is therefore instructed
      to establish an "IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Types" registry with the
      initial values given below:
      <figure anchor="jumbo-type" title="IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Types">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Value        Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----        ----------                     ---------
   0            Advanced Jumbo / NULL          [RFCXXXX]
   1            Advanced Jumbo / CRC32C        [RFCXXXX]
   2            Advanced Jumbo / CRC64E        [RFCXXXX]
   3            Advanced Jumbo / MD5           [RFCXXXX]
   4            Advanced Jumbo / SHA1          [RFCXXXX]
   5            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-224       [RFCXXXX]
   6            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-256       [RFCXXXX]
   7            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-384       [RFCXXXX]
   8            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-512       [RFCXXXX]
   9            Advanced Jumbo / CRC128J       [RFCXXXX]
   10-15        Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>In the control plane, original sources match the Identification
      (and/or other identifying information) received in Parcel
      Reports with their earlier parcel/AJ transmissions. If the identifying
      information matches, the report is likely authentic. When stronger
      authentication is needed, nodes that send Parcel Reports can
      apply the message authentication services specified for AERO/OMNI.
      For nodes that include {TCP,UDP} Parcel Parameter Options in
      ordinary data packets, however, the authenticating services that
      apply to the data packets also authenticate the options.</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
      parcel/AJ upper layer protocol headers and all upper layer protocol
      payload that follows. Since the network layer does not manipulate
      transport layer segments, parcels/AJs do not interfere with
      transport or higher-layer security services such as (D)TLS/SSL
      <xref target="RFC8446"/> which may provide greater flexibility
      in some environments.</t>

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

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

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

    <references title="Informative References">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <t>Since TCP/IPv6 parcels only include control bits for the first
      segment ("segment(0)"), nodes must regard all other segments of the
      same parcel as data segments. When a node breaks a TCP/IPv6 parcel
      out into individual packets 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., even if spread across multiple segments), then the Urgent
      Pointer can be regarded in the same manner as for jumbograms as
      described in Section 5.2 of <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="borderline" title="Extreme L Value Implications">
      <t>For each parcel, the transport layer can specify any L value
      between 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 the transport should
      specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24) =
      65443 octets.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="changes" title="Change Log">
      <t>&lt;&lt; RFC Editor - remove prior to publication &gt;&gt;</t>
       <t>Changes from version -09 to -10:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Added Appendix on "GSO/GRO API".</t>

          <t>Updated text on handling UDP options.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -09 to -10:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Allow UDP options to appear in larger parcels and AJs based
          on a "UDP Option Length" trailer.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -08 to -09:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Terminology.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -07 to -08:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Add terminology and general cleanup.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Changes from version -06 to -07:<list style="symbols">
          <t>TCP and UDP options for parcels now apply to all parcel
          segments and not just the first or final segment.</t>

          <t>TCP Sequence Numbers for parcels always appear in the PIB and
          with the TCP header Sequence Number set to 0.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Changes from version -05 to -06:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Moved all per-segment integrity checks into Parcel Integrity
          Block header. This allows hop-by-hop integrity checking of the
          end-to-end integrity check values.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Changes from earlier versions:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Submit for review.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
