IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 July 2024.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

IPv6 packets [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) [RFC9293] and reliable transport protocol users of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] (including QUIC [RFC9000], LTP [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.¶

Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a data buffer (or buffer chain) containing at most 64 consecutive transport layer protocol segments that can be broken out into individual packets or smaller sub-parcels as necessary. All segments except the final one must be equal in length and no larger than 65535 octets, while the final segment must be no larger than the others. The transport layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s), number of segments and non-final segment size to the network layer. The network layer next appends per-segment headers and trailers, merges the segments into the parcel body, appends a single {TCP,UDP} header and finally appends a single IPv6 header plus extensions that identify this as a parcel and not an ordinary packet.¶

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 [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] connection to an OMNI link that spans intermediate Internetworks. In the first case, the original source or next hop router applies packetization to break the parcel into individual IPv6 packets. In the second case, the node applies network layer parcellation to form smaller sub-parcels. In the final case, the OMNI interface applies adaptation layer parcellation to form still smaller sub-parcels, then applies adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulation and fragmentation if necessary. The node then forwards the resulting packets/parcels/fragments to the next hop.¶

Following IPv6 reassembly if necessary, an egress OMNI interface applies adaptation layer reunification if necessary to merge multiple sub-parcels into a minimum number of larger (sub-)parcels then delivers them to the network layer which either processes them locally or forwards them via the next hop link toward the final destination. The final destination can then apply network layer (parcel-based) reunification or (packet-based) restoration if necessary to deliver a minimum number of larger (sub-)parcels to the transport layer. Reordering, loss or corruption of individual segments within the network is therefore possible, but most importantly the parcels delivered to the final destination's transport layer should be the largest practical size for best performance, and loss or receipt of individual segments (rather than parcel size) determines the retransmission unit.¶

This document further introduces an "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" service that provides essential extensions beyond the basic IPv6 jumbograms defined in [RFC2675]. AJs are simplified forms of parcels 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.¶

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 in ways that promise to transform Internetworking.¶

2. Terminology

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.¶

In this same spirit, an "IPv6 parcel" is simply a collection of at most 64 transport layer protocol segments wrapped in an efficient package for transmission and delivery as a "packet-of-packets", with each segment including its own end-to-end integrity checks. Each segment may be up to 65535 octets in length, and all non-final segments must be equal in length while the final segment must not be larger. IPv6 parcels and AJs are distinguished from ordinary packets and jumbograms through the constructs specified in this document.¶

The term "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" refers to a parcel variation modeled from the basic IPv6 jumbogram construct defined in [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 in the IPv6 Payload Length field plus end-to-end segment integrity checks the same as for parcels. Unlike basic IPv6 jumbograms which are always 64KB or larger, AJs can range in size from as small as the headers plus a minimal or even null payload to as large as 2**32 octets minus headers.¶

The term "link" is defined in [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".¶

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.¶

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

Where the document refers to checksum calculations, it means the standard Internet checksum unless otherwise specified. The same as for TCP [RFC9293] and UDP [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 [RFC1071], while practical implementations require detailed attention to network byte ordering to ensure interoperability between diverse architectures.¶

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 [RFC3385] or CRC64E [ECMA-182] standards according to non-final segment length "L" (see: Section 11). AJs that employ end-to-end CRC checks include either a CRC or message digest calculated according to the MD5 [RFC1321], SHA1 [RFC3174] or US Secure Hash [RFC6234] algorithms. In all cases, the CRC or message digest is appended as a per-segment trailer arranged for transmission in network byte order per standard Internetworking conventions.¶

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).¶

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.¶

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).¶

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.)¶

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 current practice, packetization/restoration can be considered as functional equivalents to the well-known Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO) services.¶

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.¶

The terms "fragmentation" and "reassembly" follow exactly from their definitions in the IPv6 standard [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.¶

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

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.¶

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

3. Requirements

All IPv6 source hosts, destination hosts and routers that accept IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos MUST implement all aspects of this specification that apply to their functions. IPv6 nodes MUST NOT for example implement some aspects of their functions according to the specification while ignoring other aspects. All IPv6 nodes also MUST observe their respective requirements found in the normative references, including [RFC8200].¶

IPv6 parcels and AJs are derived from the basic jumbogram specification found in [RFC2675], but the specifications in this document take precedence whenever they differ from the basic requirements. Most notably, IPv6 parcels and AJs use one of either the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU [RFC9268] or basic IPv6 Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC2675]. (The former is used during path probing and for initial parcel/AJ transmissions while the latter is used for more efficient packaging following path qualification.)¶

IPv6 parcels/AJs are further permitted to encode values other than 0 (or an actual payload length) in the IPv6 Payload length field, and they are not limited only to segment sizes that exceed 65535 octets. (Instead, parcels can be as small as the packet headers plus a singleton segment with its integrity checks while AJs can be as small as the headers plus a NULL payload.) Nodes that implement this spec MUST be capable of recognizing parcels/AJs that encode a value other than 0 or an actual payload length in the IPv6 Payload Length field.¶

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

The terms "controlled environment" and "limited domain" follow directly from [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.¶

For further Hop-by-Hop Options considerations, see: [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing]. For IPv6 extension header limits, see: [I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits].¶

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 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

4. Background and Motivation

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.¶

A first study [QUIC] involved performance enhancement of the QUIC protocol [RFC9000] using the linux Generic Segment/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO) facility. GSO/GRO provides a robust service that has shown significant performance increases based on a multi-segment transfer capability between the operating system kernel and QUIC applications. GSO/GRO performs (virtual) fragmentation and reassembly at the transport layer with the transport protocol segment size limited by the path MTU (typically 1500 octets or smaller in current Internetworking practices).¶

A second study [I-D.templin-dtn-ltpfrag] showed that GSO/GRO also improves performance for the Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP) [RFC5326] used for the Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol [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.¶

TCP also benefits from larger packet sizes and efforts have investigated TCP performance using jumbograms internally with changes to the linux GSO/GRO facilities [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.¶

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 [RFC4443][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.¶

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.¶

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.¶

5. A Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Link Model

The classic Internetworking link service model requires each link in the path to apply a link-layer frame integrity check often termed a "Frame Check Sequence (FCS)". The link near-end calculates and appends an FCS trailer to each packet pending transmission, and the link far-end verifies the FCS upon packet reception. If verification fails, the link far-end unconditionally discards the packet. This process is repeated for each link in the path so that only packets that pass all link-layer checks are delivered to the final destination. (Note that Internet- or higher-layer tunnels may traverse many underlying physical links that each apply their own FCS in series.)¶

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

IPv6 parcels/AJs that engage this DTN link model include an end-to-end Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) or message digest with each segment that is calculated and inserted by the original source and verified by the final destination. For each such parcel/AJ admitted into a parcel-capable link, the link near-end applies its standard link-layer FCS upon transmission which the link far-end then verifies upon reception. Instead of unconditionally discarding frames with link errors, however, the link far-end delivers all parcel/AJ frames that engage the DTN link model to upper layers. If a link error was detected, the link far-end also sets a "CRC error" flag in the parcel/AJ header (see: Section 11).¶

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

IPv6 Parcel/AJ segments may therefore acquire cumulative link errors along the path, but the parcel/AJ error bit plus per segment end-to-end CRCs/digests and/or Internet checksums support final destination integrity checking. The final destination in turn delivers each segment to the local transport layer along with an error flag that is set only if an end-to-end CRC/digest or Internet checksum error was detected. The error flag advises the transport layer, which should employ transport or higher-layer integrity checks and invoke corrective actions.¶

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 [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.¶

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.¶

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

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.¶

6. IPv6 Parcel Formation

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

The non-final segment size L is set to a 16-bit value that MUST be no smaller than 256 octets and SHOULD be no larger than 65535 octets minus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options), minus the length of the IPv6 header (plus extensions), minus 2 octets for the Checksum header minus 4 octets for the Sequence Number (for TCP) minus 0/4/8 octets for the CRC trailer (see: Appendix B). The final segment length K MUST NOT be larger than L but MAY be smaller. The transport layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s) and size L to the network layer, noting that the combined buffer length(s) may exceed 65535 octets when there are sufficient segments of a large enough size.¶

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 Section 7.1. If the next hop link is parcel capable, the network layer instead completes the parcel by appending a single full {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) and a single full IPv6 header (plus extensions). The network layer finally includes a specially-formatted Parcel Payload option as an extension to the IPv6 header of each parcel prior to transmission over a network interface.¶

The Parcel Payload option format for IPv6 appears as shown in Figure 1:¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |C|S|D|X|      Parcel Payload Length (22 bits)      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~             Identification (64 bits)            ~+~+~+~+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

The network layer includes the Parcel Payload option as an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option with Option Type set to '0x30' and Opt Data Len set to 14 if an Identification is included or 6 if Identification is omitted (see: Appendix C). The lengths also distinguish these types from their use as the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC9268]. The network layer then sets the IPv6 header Payload Length field to L and sets Parcel Payload Length to a 22-bit value M that encodes the length of the IPv6 extension headers plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of all concatenated segments with their Checksum and sequence number (for TCP) headers and CRC trailers.¶

The network layer next sets Index to an ordinal parcel segment "Index" value between 0 and 63, sets the "(C)RC" flag to 1 if CRC trailers are used (otherwise 0) and sets the "More (S)egments" flag to 1 for non-final sub-parcels or 0 for the final (sub-)parcel. (Note that non-zero Index values identify the initial segment index in non-first sub-parcels of a larger original parcel while the value 0 denotes the first (sub-)parcel.) The network layer next sets "(D)TN" to 0 for the classic link model or 1 for the new DTN link model and sets "e(X)treme" to 0 unless otherwise specified (see: Section 10). The network layer then includes an 8-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: Section 7.5). These values provide hop-by-hop assurance that previous hops correctly implement the parcel protocol without applying legacy IPv6 option processing per [RFC9268].¶

Following this transport and network layer processing, {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 parcels therefore have the structures shown in Figure 2:¶

       TCP/IPv6 Parcel Structure          UDP/IPv6 Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   IPv6 Hdr plus extensions   ~   ~   IPv6 Hdr plus extensions   ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum 0 followed by    |   |    Checksum 0 followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number 0 followed  ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment 0 (L octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~
   |      followed by CRC 0       |   |            CRC 0             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum 1 followed by    |   |    Checksum 1 followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number 1 followed  ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment 1 (L octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~
   |      followed by CRC 1       |   |            CRC 1             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   ~         More Segments        ~   ~         More Segments        ~
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |    Checksum J followed by    |   |    Checksum J followed by    |
   ~  Sequence Number J followed  ~   ~     Segment J (K octets)     ~
   ~    by Segment J (K octets)   ~   ~         followed by          ~
   |      followed by CRC J       |   |            CRC J             |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+

       /* L is non-final segment length;
          M is parcel payload length;
          H is length of {TCP,UDP} header plus IPv6 extensions;
          P is parcel payload length minus headers;
          C is combined length of per-segment header/trailer;
          (integer arithmetic assumed.)*/

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

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

       if ((K = (P % (L + C))) == 0) {
           J--; K = L;
       } else {
           if ((J > 63) || ((K -= C) <= 0))
               drop parcel;
       }

7. Transmission of IPv6 Parcels

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: Section 7.5), sets D to 0 for classic or 1 for DTN link models, sets X to 0 for normal or 1 for "e(X)treme path" OMNI link traversal and also sets IPv6 Payload Length to L (between 256 and 65535) to distinguish the parcel from other jumbogram types (see: Section 8).¶

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

The source finally presents the parcel to an interface for transmission to the next hop. For ordinary interface attachments to parcel-capable links, the source simply admits each parcel into the interface the same as for any IPv6 packet where it may be forwarded by one or more routers over additional consecutive parcel-capable links possibly even traversing the entire forward path to the final destination. Note that any node in the path that does not recognize the parcel construct may either drop it and return an ICMP Parameter Problem message or attempt to forward it as a (malformed) packet.¶

Most importantly, each parcel-capable link in the path forwards parcels/AJs with D=1 even if link errors were detected 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 with D=1 it sets a "CRC error" flag in the parcel/AJ header if a link error was detected before forwarding to the next hop (see: Section 11).¶

When the next hop link does not support parcels at all, or when the next hop link is parcel-capable but configures an MTU that is too small to pass the entire parcel, the source breaks the parcel up into individual IPv6 packets (in the first case) or into smaller sub-parcels (in the second case). In the first case, the source can apply packetization using Generic Segment Offload (GSO), and the final destination can apply restoration using Generic Receive Offload (GRO) to deliver the largest possible parcel buffer(s) to the transport layer. In the second case, the source can apply parcellation to break the parcel into sub-parcels with each containing the same Identification value and with the S flag set appropriately. The final destination can then apply reunification to deliver the largest possible parcel buffer(s) to the transport layer. In all other ways, the source processes of breaking a parcel up into individual IPv6 packets or smaller sub-parcels entail the same considerations as for a router on the path that invokes these processes as discussed in the following subsections.¶

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 Section 7.5. Each router in the path may rewrite the fields to progressively smaller values in a similar fashion as for [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 [RFC4821][RFC8899]. Such probes may be necessary to refine the Residual Path MTU, for which parcel probes can only provide an estimate.¶

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: Section 7.6) 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.¶

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.¶

          Parcel Parameters Option for Multi-Segment Parcels
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Index  |R|S|Res|     Parcel Payload Length (22 bits)       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-              Identification (64 bits)           -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Parcel Parameters Option for Single-Segment Parcels/AJs
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-              Identification (64 bits)           -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  | Opt Data Len  |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |  Parcel Limit |  Reserved |O|X|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-            Identification (64 bits)           -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Kind      |     Length    |             ExID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |  Parcel Limit |  Reserved |O|X|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-             Identification (64 bits)            -+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

8. Advanced Jumbos (AJ)

This specification introduces an IPv6 Advanced Jumbo (AJ) service as a (single-segment) parcel alternative to basic jumbograms. The function employs an Advanced Jumbo Option with the same IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option Type and same basic format as for the Parcel Payload option.¶

When the source prepares an AJ it sets Opt Data Len to 14 if an Identification is included or 6 if Identification is omitted the same as for the Parcel Payload option, but replaces the "Index/C/S/D/X" and Parcel Payload Length fields by a single 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field as shown in Figure 7:¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Jumbo Payload Length (32 bits)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~             Identification (64 bits)            ~+~+~+~+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

The source forms {TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJs by setting the most significant octet of the IPv6 Payload Length field to 0 and treating the least significant octet of the IPv6 Payload Length field as an "Advanced Jumbo (AJ) Format" octet as shown in Figure 8:¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       0       |D|X|FEC|  Type |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   <-- AJ Format -->

In the AJ Format octet, the source sets "D" to 0 for the classic link model or 1 for the DTN link model and sets "X" to 0 for classic OMNI link traversal or 1 for "e(X)treme path" traversal. The source then sets "Type" to one of the CRC/digest types found in Figure 9 and sets "FEC" to 0 (future specifications may define new values, e.g., for Forward Error Correction (FEC) parameters, etc.). Implementations MUST support the following integrity checking algorithms identified by "Type":¶

   Type    Algorithm      CRC/digest Length
   ----    ---------      -----------------
   1       NULL           0 octets
   2       CRC32C         4 octets
   3       CRC64E         8 octets
   4       MD5            16 octets
   5       SHA1           20 octets
   6       SHA-224        28 octets
   7       SHA-256        32 octets
   8       SHA-384        48 octets
   9       SHA-512        64 octets

The source then forms {TCP/UDP}/IPv6 AJs the same as for parcels as shown in Figure 2 except that it includes only a single segment ("Segment 0"). The source then includes a 2-octet Checksum header and N-octet CRC/digest trailer for the segment according to Type. Unlike parcels, TCP AJs do not include a separate Sequence Number header for the (single) segment since the sequence number is coded in the TCP header the same as for an ordinary packet.¶

AJs that include a message digest employ the algorithms specified for MD5 [RFC1321], SHA1 [RFC3174] and the advanced US Secure Hash Algorithms [RFC6234] according the to AJ Type. AJs can instead employ a CRC32C/CRC64E integrity check by selecting a Type value with a CRC code instead of a message digest. (A Type value is also reserved by IANA as a non-functional placeholder for a nominal CRC128J algorithm, which may be specified in future documents - see: Appendix D.)¶

When source prepares an AJ, it 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: Section 7.5). The source then calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum based on the same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see: Figure 12) but with the "Index/C/S/D/X" and Parcel Payload Length fields replaced with a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field and with the Segment Length replaced with the AJ Format Octet - see above.¶

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 Types other than 1, 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 trailer. The source then sends the AJ via the next hop link toward the final destination.¶

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, 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: Section 7.1) 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.¶

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: Section 10.¶

9. Minimal IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos

The source can use the basic IPv6 parcel/AJ constructs specified in the previous sections using the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop option [RFC9268] for the initial packets of a flow to confirm parcel path qualification. Once a path has been qualified, however, the source can begin sending minimal IPv6 parcels/AJs that instead use the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop option [RFC2675] to benefit from a per parcel/AJ overhead savings as shown in Figure 10:¶

                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Option Data First 4 Octets                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~           Identification (64 bits)          ~+~+~+~+~+
   ~                                                               ~
   +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

In this format, the network layer includes the IPv6 minimal Parcel/Jumbo Option as an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option with Option Type set to '0xC2' and Opt Data Len set to 4 or 12 depending on whether the optional identification field is also included. For parcels, the first 4 octets of the Option Data include the "Index/C/S/D/X" and Parcel Payload Length components as shown in Figure 1 while for AJs the first 4 octets include the Jumbo Payload Length as shown in Figure 7. The network layer prepares all other aspects of IPv6 minimal parcels/AJs exactly the same as for the basic specifications found in previous sections except that Option Type; Opt Data Len are different and the Code/Check fields are omitted.¶

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

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

After receiving a probe reply with parameters for future parcel/AJ transmissions, the source MAY elect to immediately begin sending parcels/AJs using the minimal formats specified in this section and forgo the basic formats altogether. This option may be more appropriate for paths that are expected to remain stable for extended periods, and may not be as suitable for more dynamic paths. (IPv6 parcels and AJs that use the minimal format can also omit the Identification field to realize an 8-octet overhead savings over paths that do not invoke packetization or parcellation.)¶

10. OMNI Interface Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation

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 parcel probes, parcels and 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.¶

For parcel 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 [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] 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 Figure 11. 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 Section 7.5, 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.¶

     Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel Probe          Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel/AJ
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~        L2 UDP header         ~   ~        L2 UDP header         ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       L2 Parcel Probe        ~   ~   L2 Advanced Jumbo Type 1   ~
   |         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/AJ          ~
   |         HBH option           |   |         HBH option           |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~
   ~          packet body         ~   ~        parcel/AJ body        ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+

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).¶

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".¶

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.¶

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 an Advanced Jumbo Type 1 option (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 [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]. The parcel/AJ "jumbo-in-jumbo" encapsulation format is shown in Figure 11.¶

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: [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]). 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.¶

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/jumbo.¶

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.¶

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.¶

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.¶

Note: The D flag has the same effect for jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulated parcels/AJs as for ordinary parcels/AJs. Namely, if the D flag is set and a link in the L2 path detects an error, it sets the CRC error flag and forwards the (errored) jumbo-in-jumbo parcel/AJ as long as the L2/OMNI header checksum is correct.¶

11. Integrity

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

The {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header plus each segment of a parcel/AJ includes its own integrity checks. In the DTN link model, the {TCP,UDP} Checksum header integrity check SHOULD be verified by each hop for which a link error is encountered to ensure that parcels/AJs with errored addressing information are detected. The per-segment Checksums/CRCs are set by the source and verified by the destination. Note that 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 [STONE].¶

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

IPv6 parcels and AJs include a separate 2-octet Internet Checksum header for each segment noting that 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) then continuing with the first segment octet and extending over the entire segment length up to but not including the integrity check trailer (if present).¶

IPv6 parcels with C=1 use one of two different CRC types according to the non-final segment length "L". For values of L smaller than 9216 octets (9KB), the original source uses the CRC32C specification [RFC3385] and encodes the CRC in a 4 octet trailer. For larger L values, the source uses the CRC64E specification [ECMA-182] and encodes the CRC in an 8 octet trailer. AJs that set an Advanced Jumbo Type other than NULL instead include either a 4/8 octet CRC or an N-octet message digest trailer calculated per [RFC1321], [RFC3174] or [RFC6234] according to the hash algorithm assigned to Type.¶

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

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

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 [RFC8200] as shown in Figure 12. This allows for maximum reuse of widely deployed code while ensuring interoperability.¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~               IPv6 Source Address (16 octets)                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~             IPv6 Destination Address (16 octets)              ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Parcel/Jumbo Payload Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Payload Length         |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where the following fields appear:¶

• Source Address is the 16-octet IPv6 source address of the prepared parcel/AJ.¶

• Destination Address is the 16-octet IPv6 destination address of the prepared parcel/AJ.¶

• For parcels, the 4-octets of the Parcel/Jumbo Payload Length encode the Index/C/S/D/X and 22-bit Parcel Payload Length as they appear in the Parcel Payload Option fields of the same name. For AJs, the Parcel/Jumbo Payload Length encodes the 4-octet Jumbo Payload Length value found in the Jumbo Payload Option.¶

• Payload Length is the value that appears in the IPv6 Payload Length field of the prepared parcel/AJ.¶

• zero encodes the constant value 0.¶

• Next Header is the IP protocol number corresponding to the transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP or UDP.¶

When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers a parcel body to the network layer, it presents the values L and J along with the (J + 1) segments in canonical order as a list of data buffers and with each TCP segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence Number field. (For AJs, the transport layer instead delivers the singleton AJ segment along with the Jumbo Payload Length.) When the network layer of the source accepts the parcel/AJ body from the transport layer protocol entity, it calculates the Internet checksum for each segment and writes the value in the per-segment Checksum header (or writes the value 0 when UDP checksums are disabled).¶

For parcels/AJs that include trailing integrity checks, the network layer then calculates the CRC/digest for each segment beginning with the Checksum field and inserts the result as a segment trailer in network byte order. The network layer then concatenates all segments and appends the necessary {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers and extensions to form a parcel. The network layer then calculates the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header checksum over the length of only the {TCP,UDP} headers plus IPv6 pseudo header then forwards the parcel to the next hop without further processing.¶

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.¶

When the network layer restores a parcel from one or more individual {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packets received from the source, it instead marks the CRCs of each segment as correct since the individual packets were subject to CRC checks at each hop along the path. The network layer then verifies the Internet checksum of each individual packet (except when UDP checksums are disabled), restores the parcel, and delivers each parcel/AJ segment along with a CRC/Checksum error flag to the transport layer.¶

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

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

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

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

12. Implementation Status

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.¶

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".¶

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.¶

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.¶

13. IANA Considerations

The IANA is instructed to add a reference to this document ([RFCXXXX]) in the "Jumbo Payload" and "Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option" entries in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" table of the 'ipv6-parameters' registry.¶

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:¶

   Code            Name                         Reference
   ---             ----                         ---------
   3 (suggested)   Parcel Report                [RFCXXXX]
   4 (suggested)   Jumbo Report                 [RFCXXXX]

The IANA is requested to assign two new entries in the 'ipv6-parameters' registry "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" table (registration procedures IESG Approval, IETF Review or Standards Action). The first entry sets "Hex Value" to '0xE2', "acct" to '11', "chg" to '1', "rest" to '00010' and Description to "Minimal Parcel/AJ With Errors". The second entry sets "Hex Value" to '0x10', "acct" to '00', "chg" to '0', "rest" to '10000' and Description to "Parcel/AJ With Errors". Both entries set "Reference" to this document [RFCXXXX].¶

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 [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 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]). This document places no preferences on the actual TBD1 value assignment.¶

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

For IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the 'Opt Data Len' field of the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC9268] serves as an "Option Format" code that distinguishes the various IPv6 option formats specified in this document. Initial values are given below:¶

   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------
   0-3         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   4           IPv6 Minimum Path MTU           [RFC9268]
   5           Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   6           Parcel/Advanced Jumbo (no ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   7-13        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   14          Parcel/Advanced Jumbo (ID)      [RFCXXXX]
   15-17       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   18          Parcel Probe                    [RFCXXXX]
   19-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]

For minimal IPv6 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the 'Opt Data Len' field of the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC2675] serves as an "Option Format" code that distinguishes the minimal formats specified in this document. Initial values are given below:¶

   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------
   0-3         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   4           Minimal Jumbo/AJ (no ID)        [RFC2675]
   5-11        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   12          Minimal Parcel/AJ (ID)          [RFCXXXX]
   13-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]

For IPv6 Advanced Jumbos, when the most significant octet of the IPv6 Payload Length field encodes the value 0 the least significant 4 bits of the Payload Length 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:¶

   Value        Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----        ----------                     ---------
   0            Basic Jumbogram (IPv6 only)    [RFC2675]
   1            Advanced Jumbo / NULL          [RFCXXXX]
   2            Advanced Jumbo / CRC32C        [RFCXXXX]
   3            Advanced Jumbo / CRC64E        [RFCXXXX]
   4            Advanced Jumbo / MD5           [RFCXXXX]
   5            Advanced Jumbo / SHA1          [RFCXXXX]
   6            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-224       [RFCXXXX]
   7            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-256       [RFCXXXX]
   8            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-384       [RFCXXXX]
   9            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-512       [RFCXXXX]
   10           Advanced Jumbo / CRC128J       [RFCXXXX]
   11-15        Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]

14. Security Considerations

In the control plane, original sources match the Identification (and/or other identifying information) received in Parcel/Jumbo 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/Jumbo 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.¶

In the data plane, multi-layer security solutions may be needed to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability. According to [RFC8200], a full IPv6 implementation includes the Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] per the IPsec architecture [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 [RFC8446] which may provide greater flexibility in some environments.¶

IPv4 fragment reassembly is considered dangerous at high data rates where undetected reassembly buffer corruptions can result from fragment misassociations [RFC4963]. IPv6 is less subject to these concerns when the 32-bit Identification field is managed responsibly but this may be less true if the starting sequence number is changed frequently. However, IPv6 can robustly sustain high data rate restoration/reunification and uniqueness verification for parcels/AJs using extended 64-bit Identifications.¶

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.¶

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

15. Acknowledgements

This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations. The concepts were further motivated through discussions with colleagues.¶

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

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.¶

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.¶

Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.¶

Appendix A. TCP Extensions for High Performance

TCP Extensions for High Performance are specified in [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.¶

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.¶

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 [RFC7323] provides implementation guidelines for the Timestamp option layout.¶

Appendix A of [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.¶

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 [RFC2675].¶

Appendix B. Extreme L Value Implications

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.¶

The transport layer should also specify an L value no larger than can accommodate the maximum-sized transport and network layer headers that the source will include without causing a single segment plus headers to exceed 65535 octets. For example, if the source will include a 28 octet TCP header plus a 40 octet IPv6 header with 24 extension header octets (plus 6/10 octets for the per-segment Checksum/CRC) the transport should specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24 - 10) = 65433 octets.¶

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.¶

Finally, the transport layer must not set "extreme" L values that would cause the Parcel Payload Length to exceed (2**22 - 1) octets, since the resulting malformed parcel could not be properly processed.¶

Appendix C. Including/Omitting the Identification

The Parcel/Jumbo Payload options (both in their full and minimal forms) provide the source with the option to either include or omit the 8-octet Identification value associated with each transmission. The source should include an Identification field if the parcel/AJ may be subject to packetization or parcellation in the path, and may omit the field if the path is stable and supports AJs over its entire length.¶

The presence of a well-managed Identification value also provides the source with a means for matching any ICMP errors received with its subject parcel/AJ transmissions. However, the IPv6 architecture determined that Identification values should only be supplied to support the fragmentation and reassembly process; otherwise omitted. This architectural precedence may serve as an example in efficiency for parcels/AJ transmissions under nominal operating conditions.¶

Appendix D. Advanced Jumbo Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC128J)

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.¶

Appendix E. Change Log

<< RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>¶

Changes from earlier versions:¶

• Submit for review.¶

Author's Address