IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos

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 13 May 2024.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2023 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

IP packets (both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [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 IP packets each containing only a single segment. This document presents a new construct known as the IP Parcel which permits a single packet to include multiple segments. The parcel is essentially a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IP 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 and/or smaller sub-parcels if 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 delivers the buffer(s), number of segments and non-final segment size to the network layer. The network layer then appends a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) header to each segment, merges the segments into the parcel body, appends a {TCP,UDP} header and finally appends an IP 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 IP 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 service that provides essential extensions beyond the basic IPv6 jumbogram service defined in [RFC2675]. Advanced jumbos are defined for both IP protocol versions and provide end systems and routers with a more robust service when the transmission of truly large singleton segments is necessary.¶

The following sections discuss rationale for creating and shipping IP parcels and advanced jumbos as well as actual protocol constructs and procedures involved. IP parcels and advanced jumbos provide essential building blocks for improved performance, efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs). These services should further inspire future innovation in applications, transport protocols, operating systems, network equipment and data links in ways that promise to transform the Internet architecture.¶

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 "IP 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". IP parcels are distinguished from ordinary packets and various forms of jumbograms through the constructs specified in this document.¶

The IP parcel construct is defined for both IPv4 and IPv6. Where the document refers to "IPv4 header length", it means the total length of the base IPv4 header plus all included options, i.e., as determined by consulting the Internet Header Length (IHL) field. Where the document refers to "IPv6 header length", however, it means only the length of the base IPv6 header (i.e., 40 octets), while the length of any extension headers is referred to separately as the "IPv6 extension header length". Finally, the term "IP header plus extensions" refers generically to an IPv4 header plus all included options or an IPv6 header plus all included extension headers.¶

The term "advanced jumbo" refers to a new type of IP jumbogram defined for both IP protocol versions and modeled from the basic IPv6 jumbogram construct defined in [RFC2675]. Advanced jumbos include a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field the same as for basic IPv6 jumbograms, but are differentiated from parcels and other jumbogram types by including a "Jumbo Type" value '255' in the IP {Total, Payload} Length field.¶

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

Where the document refers to checksum calculations, it means the standard Internet checksum unless otherwise specified. The same as for TCP [RFC9293], UDP [RFC0768] and IPv4 [RFC0791], the standard Internet checksum is defined as (sic) "the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of all (pseudo-)headers plus data, padded with zero octets at the end (if necessary) to make a multiple of two octets". A notional Internet checksum algorithm can be found in [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. The CRC32C [RFC3385], CRC64E [ECMA-182] and MD5 [RFC1321] standards are selected according to the parcel non-final segment length "L" (see Section 6.7). In all cases, the CRC code is arranged for transmission in network byte order the same as for standard Internetworking conventions. Where the simple term "CRC" appears, it means "one of CRC32C, CRC64E or MD5".¶

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/jumbo-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}/IP packets that employ the parcel/jumbo constructs specified in this document. The source and each router in the path has a "next hop link" that forwards parcels/jumbos toward the final destination, while each router and the final destination has a "previous hop link" that accepts en route parcels/jumbos. Each next hop link must be capable of forwarding parcels/jumbos (after first applying parcellation if necessary) with segment lengths no larger than can transit the link. Currently only the OMNI link satisfies these properties, while other link types that support parcels/jumbos should soon follow.¶

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 IP fragmentation. If the MTU value returned during parcel path qualification is larger than 65535 (plus the length of the parcel headers), it determines the maximum-sized parcel or jumbo that can transit the link/path without requiring a router to perform packetization/parcellation. If the MTU is no larger than 65535, the value instead determines the "Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" for the leading portion of the path up to a router that cannot forward the parcel further. (Note that this size may still be larger than the MSS that can transit the remainder of the path to the final destination, which can only be determined through explicit MSS probing.)¶

The terms "packetization" and "restoration" refer to a network layer process in which the original source or a router on the path breaks a parcel out into individual IP 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 be first 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 IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC8200] standards. In particular, OMNI interfaces support IPv6 encapsulation and fragmentation as an adaptation layer process that can transit packets or (sub-)parcels of sizes that exceed the underlying Internetwork path MTU. OMNI fragmentation/reassembly occurs at a lower layer of the protocol stack than restoration and/or reunification and therefore provides a complimentary service.¶

"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 IP parcels and advanced jumbos over one or more concatenated Internetworks. AERO/OMNI will provide an operational environment for IP parcels beginning from the earliest deployment phases and extending indefinitely to accommodate continuous future growth. As more and more parcel/jumbo-capable links are deployed (e.g., in data centers, edge networks, space-domain, and other high data rate services) AERO/OMNI will continue to provide an essential service for Internetworking performance maximization.¶

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

IP parcels and advanced jumbos 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, IPv4 parcels use the IPv4 Probe MTU option [RFC1063] while IPv6 parcels and advanced jumbos may use one of either the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU [RFC9268] or basic IPv6 jumbogram [RFC2675] Hop-by-Hop option. IP parcels and advanced jumbos are further permitted to encode values other than '0' in the IP {Total, Payload} length field and they are not limited to packet sizes that exceed 65535 octets. (Instead, IP parcels can be as small as the packet headers plus a singleton segment while advanced jumbos can be as small as the headers plus a NULL payload.)¶

Each IPv4 parcel/advanced jumbo includes at most one Probe MTU option and each IPv6 parcel/advanced jumbo includes at most one IPv6 Minimum Path MTU or Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop option. Intermediate and end systems therefore silently drop any parcels/advanced jumbos that include multiple. For further Hop-by-Hop option 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.¶

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 today's Internet).¶

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 OMNI interface encapsulation and fragmentation. Historically, the NFS protocol also saw significant performance increases using larger (single-segment) UDP datagrams even when IP fragmentation is invoked, and LTP still follows this profile today. Moreover, LTP shows this (single-segment) performance increase profile extending to the largest possible segment size which suggests that additional performance gains are possible using (multi-segment) IP parcels that approach or even exceed 65535 octets 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 available. Hence, IP parcels 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 [RFC1191][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. This would 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. IP 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 non-first segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence Number header and with each segment (plus Sequence Number) preceded by a 4-octet or 8-octet CRC. 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 IP header (plus options/extensions), minus 4/8 octets for a per-segment CRC (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 IP packet as discussed in Section 6.1. If the next hop link is parcel capable, the network layer instead completes the parcel by appending a CRC to each segment then appending a single full {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) and a single full IP header (plus options/extensions). The network layer finally includes a specially-formatted Parcel Payload option as an extension to the IP header of each parcel prior to transmission over a network interface.¶

The Parcel Payload option format for both IP protocol versions appears as shown in Figure 1:¶

                   IPv4 Parcel Payload Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option-type  | option-length |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   IPv6 Parcel Payload Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

For IPv4, the network layer includes the Parcel Payload option as an IPv4 header option with option-type set to '0x0B' and option-length set to '8'. The length also distinguishes this type from its obsoleted use as the IPv4 Probe MTU option [RFC1063]. The network layer next sets Parcel Payload Length to a 3-octet value M that encodes the length of the IPv4 header plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of all concatenated segments with their CRC (and for TCP also Sequence Number) headers. The network layer then sets the IPv4 header DF bit to '1' and Total Length field to the non-final segment size L.¶

For IPv6, 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 '6'. The length also distinguishes this type from its use as the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC9268]. The network layer next sets Parcel Payload Length to a 3-octet value M that encodes the lengths of all IPv6 extension headers present plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of all concatenated segments with their CRC (and for TCP also Sequence Number) headers. The network layer then sets the IPv6 header Payload Length field to L.¶

For both IP protocol versions, the network layer then sets Index to an ordinal segment "Parcel Index" value between '0' and '63', sets the "(P)arcel" flag to '1' and sets the "More (S)egments" flag to '1' for non-final sub-parcels or '0' for the final (sub-)parcel. (Note that non-zero Index values identify the initial segment index in non-first sub-parcels of a larger original parcel while the value '0' denotes the first sub-parcel.) The network layer finally sets Code to '255' and sets Check to the same value that will appear in the IP header TTL/Hop Limit field on transmission. These values provide hop-by-hop assurance that previous hops correctly implement the parcel protocol without applying [RFC1063][RFC9268] processing.¶

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

        TCP/IP Parcel Structure            UDP/IP Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    IP Hdr plus extensions    ~   ~    IP Hdr plus extensions    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   | (Includes Sequence Number 0) |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~            CRC 0             ~   ~             CRC 0            ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Segment 0 (L-4 octets)    ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~            CRC 1             ~   ~             CRC 1            ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |  Sequence Number 1 followed  |   |                              |
   ~    by Segment 1 (L octets)   ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   ~ More CRCs, SN's and Segments ~   ~    More CRCs and Segments    ~
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~            CRC J             ~   ~             CRC J            ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |  Sequence Number J followed  |   |                              |
   ~    by Segment J (K octets)   ~   ~     Segment J (K octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+

The {TCP,UDP}/IP header is then followed by (J + 1) transport layer segments. For TCP, the TCP header Sequence Number field encodes a 4-octet starting sequence number for the first segment only, while each additional segment is preceded by its own 4-octet Sequence Number field and all segments are preceded by a CRC but without the CRC length included in L and K. For this reason, the length of the first segment is only (L-4) octets since the 4-octet TCP header Sequence Number field applies to that segment. (All non-first TCP segments instead begin with their own Sequence Number headers, with the 4-octet length included in L and K.)¶

       /* L must be at least 256;
          T is temporary length;
          H is {TCP,UDP}/IP header/extension lengths;
          for TCP, segment 0 Sequence Number is S octets (4);
          for each segment, CRC is C octets (either 4 or 8);
          integer arithmetic assumed.*/

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

       if (TCP) T += S;

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

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

       if ((TCP) && (J == 0) && ((K -= S) <= 0))
           drop parcel;

6. Transmission of IP Parcels

When the network layer of the source assembles a {TCP,UDP}/IP parcel it fully populates all IP header fields including the source address, destination address and Parcel Payload option as above. The source also sets IP {Total, Payload} Length to L (between 256 and 65535) to distinguish the parcel from other jumbogram types (see: Section 7).¶

The network layer of the source also maintains a randomly-initialized 4/8/12/16-octet (32/64/96/128-bit) (extended) Identification value for each destination expressed in an Identification Extension Option for the Internet Protocol and includes an Identification in each parcel (see: [I-D.templin-intarea-ipid-ext]). For each packet or parcel transmission, the source sets the (extended) Identification to the current cached value for this destination and increments the cached value by 1 (modulo 2**32/64/96/128) 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.)¶

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

Most importantly, each parcel-capable link in the path forwards the parcel while disabling traditional link-layer integrity checks since parcels (and also advanced jumbos) include end-to-end integrity checks that obviate the need for hop-by-hop checks. This ensures that the vast majority of good data is delivered to the final destination instead of being discarded along with a small amount of errored data at an intermediate hop.¶

When the next hop link does not support parcels at all, or when the next hop link is parcel-capable but configures an MTU that is too small to pass the entire parcel, the source breaks the parcel up into individual IP packets (in the first case) or into smaller sub-parcels (in the second case). In the first case, the source can apply packetization using Generic Segment Offload (GSO), and the final destination can apply 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 (extended) 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 IP 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 set a Path MTU (PMTU field) to a non-zero value as discussed in Section 6.6. Each router in the path then rewrites PMTU in a similar fashion as for [RFC1063][RFC9268]. Specifically, each router compares the parcel PMTU value with the next hop link MTU in the parcel path and MUST (re)set PMTU to the minimum value. The fact that the parcel transited a previous hop link provides sufficient evidence of forward progress (since parcel path MTU determination is unidirectional in the forward path only), but nodes can also include the previous hop link MTU in their minimum PMTU calculations in case the link may have an ingress size restriction (such as a receive buffer limitation). Each parcel also includes one or more transport layer segments corresponding to the 5-tuple for the flow, which may include {TCP,UDP} segment size probes used for packetization layer path MTU discovery [RFC4821][RFC8899]. (See: Section 6.6 for further details on parcel path probing.)¶

When a router receives an IP parcel it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IP header TTL/Hop Limit; if either value differs, the router drops the parcel and returns a negative Jumbo Report (see: Section 6.5) subject to rate limiting. (Note that the IP parcel may also have been truncated in length by a previous-hop router that does not recognize the construct.) For all other intact IP parcels, the router next compares the value L with the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is parcel capable but configures an MTU too small to admit a parcel with a single segment of length L the router returns a positive Jumbo Report (subject to rate limiting) with MTU set to the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is not parcel capable and configures an MTU too small to pass an individual IP packet with a single segment of length L the router instead returns a positive Parcel Report (subject to rate limiting) with MTU set to the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is parcel capable the router MUST reset Check to the same value that would appear in the IP header TTL/Hop Limit field upon transmission to the next hop.¶

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

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Next Header  |   Index   |P|S|      Fragment Offset    |Res|M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                         Identification                        ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   IPv4 Parcel Probe Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option-type  | option-length |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Path MTU (PMTU)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   IPv6 Parcel Probe Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |     Code      |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|             Parcel Payload Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Path MTU (PMTU)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   IPv4 Jumbo Reply MTU Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option-type  | option-length |               0               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               0                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Path MTU (PMTU)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                         Identification                        ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                   IPv6 Jumbo Reply MTU Option Format
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               0                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Path MTU (PMTU)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                         Identification                        ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       IPv4 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      IPv4 Source Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    IPv4 Destination Address                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      zero     |  Next Header  |        Segment Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|            Parcel Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                       IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      IPv6 Source Address                      ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                   IPv6 Destination Address                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Index   |P|S|            Parcel Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Segment Length         |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

7. Advanced Jumbos

This specification introduces an IP advanced jumbo service as an alternative to basic IPv6 jumbograms that also includes a path probing function based on the mechanisms specified in Section 6.6. The function employs an Advanced Jumbo Option with the same option type and length values as for the Parcel Payload/Probe options, but with the Parcel Index and Parcel Payload Length fields converted to a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field as shown in Figure 8:¶

                IPv4 Advanced Jumbo/Probe Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option-type  | option-length |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Jumbo Payload Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                  Path MTU (PMTU) (Probes Only)                ~
   +- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+

                IPv6 Advanced Jumbo/Probe Option Format
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Jumbo Payload Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                   Path MTU (PMTU) (Probes Only)               ~
   +- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - -+

{TCP/UDP}/IP advanced jumbos/probes are formed the same as for parcels as shown in Figure 2 except that they include only a single segment ("Segment 0") preceded by a 16-octet MD5 value [RFC1321] in network byte order as the "CRC".¶

The source prepares an advanced jumbo/probe by first setting the IP {Total, Payload} Length field to the special Jumbo Type value '255' to distinguish this from a basic jumbogram or parcel. The source can begin by sending a Jumbo Probe to pre-qualify the path for advanced jumbos if necessary.¶

To prepare a Jumbo Probe that will trigger a Jumbo Report, the source can set {Protocol, Next Header} to {TCP,UDP}, set the {TCP,UDP} port to '9' (discard) and either include no octets beyond the {TCP,UDP} header or a single discard segment of the desired probe size immediately following the header and with no Integrity Block included. (The source can instead set the {TCP,UDP} port to the port number for a current data flow in order to receive IP Jumbo Reply MTU options in return packets as discussed in Section 6.6.) The source then sets Jumbo Payload Length to the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the length of the MD5 digest plus the discard segment plus the length of the full IP header for IPv4 or the extension headers for IPv6.¶

The source next sets the (extended) Identification the same as for an IP Parcel Probe, sets the Jumbo Probe PMTU to the next hop link MTU, then sets Code to 255 and Check to the next hop TTL/Hop Limit. The source then calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum based on the same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see: Figure 7) but with the Parcel Index and Payload Length fields replaced with a 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field and with the Segment Length replaced with the Jumbo Type value '255'. The source then calculates the checksum over the pseudo header then calculates and sets the MD5 digest of the (single) segment. The source then sends the Jumbo Probe via the next hop link toward the final destination.¶

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

If the Jumbo Probe encounters an OMNI link, the OAL source can either drop the probe and return a negative Jumbo Report or forward the probe further toward the OAL destination using adaptation layer encapsulation. If the OAL source already knows the OAL path MTU for this OAL destination, it can encapsulate and forward the Jumbo Probe with PMTU set to the minimum of itself and the known value (minus the adaptation layer header size), and without adding any padding octets.¶

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

The OAL source then writes this size into the Jumbo Probe PMTU field and forwards the newly-created adaptation layer jumbogram toward the OAL destination. If the jumbogram somehow transits the path, the OAL destination then removes the adaptation layer encapsulation, discards the padding, then forwards the Jumbo Probe onward toward the final destination (with each hop reducing PMTU if necessary).¶

When a router on the path forwards a Jumbo Probe, it drops and returns a Jumbo Report if the next hop MTU is insufficient; otherwise, it forwards to the next hop toward the final destination. When the final destination receives the Jumbo Probe, it returns a Jumbo Report with the PMTU set to the maximum-sized jumbo that can transit the path.¶

When the Jumbo Probe reaches the final destination, the destination first examines the {TCP,UDP} port number. If the port number is '9' (discard), the destination returns a Jumbo Report UDP message; otherwise, the destination prepares an IP Jumbo Reply MTU option to include in a data packet on the return path to the original source. Detailed descriptions for these processes are found in Section 6.6.¶

After successfully probing the path, the original source can begin sending regular advanced jumbos by setting the IP {Total, Payload} Length field to the special Jumbo Type value '255', omitting the PMTU field and calculating the Checksum and MD5 digest the same as described for probes above. When the network layer of the final destination receives an advanced jumbo, it first verifies the Checksum and MD5 digest then delivers the data and CRC flag to the transport layer without returning a Jumbo Report. The source can continue to send advanced jumbos into the path with the possibility that the path may change. In that case, a router in the network may return an ICMP error, an ICMPv6 PTB, or a Jumbo Report if the path MTU decreases.¶

Note: when a source sends a jumbo probe into a new path that has not been probed previously, it should include enough padding payload so that the overall packet length is consistent with the value found in the IP {Total, Payload} Length field. This allows legacy routers on the path that do not recognize jumbos to see a length that is consistent with the value found in the IP header.¶

Note: If the OAL source can in some way determine that a very large packet is likely to transit the OAL path, it can encapsulate a Jumbo Probe to form an adaptation layer jumbogram even larger than (2**24 - 1) octets with the understanding that the time required to transit the path determines acceptable jumbogram sizes.¶

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

8. Minimal IPv6 Parcels/Advanced Jumbos

The basic IPv6 parcel and advanced jumbo constructs specified in the previous sections use the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop option [RFC9268] initially to allow each hop to participate in path qualification. Once a path has been qualified to accept the basic constructs, however, the source can begin sending minimal IPv6 parcels or advanced jumbos that instead use the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC2675] to benefit from an 8-octet per packet savings as shown in Figure 9:¶

                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Option Data (first four octets)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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'. For parcels, the first four octets of the Option Data are formatted exactly as shown in Figure 1 while for advanced jumbos the first four octets are exactly as shown in Figure 8. The network layer prepares all other aspects of IPv6 minimal parcels and advanced jumbos exactly the same as for the basic specifications found in previous sections except the option type/length are different and the Code/Check fields are omitted.¶

This implies that implementations that honor the basic IPv6 parcel and advanced jumbo 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 and advanced jumbos they receive in case the path changes and an unqualified previous hop begins truncating them. In that case, the node MUST drop the packet and return a negative Jumbo Report to the source which must then re-initiate parcel/jumbo path probing.¶

9. OMNI IP Parcels/Advanced Jumbos

Network intermediate systems often drop IPv4 packets that contain IP header options unconditionally. This presents an obstacle to deploying new IPv4 options in the Internet, but may be less of a concern within some limited domain networks. As a first alternative, the source could encode IPv4 parcel and advanced jumbo options as IPv6 extension headers; for example, the source could set the IPv4 header Protocol to 0 and include an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option immediately after the header. Since intermediate systems are also known to drop packets with IPv6 extension headers, however, the source could instead employ a second alternative more likely to provide service by concealing IPv6 options within the body of a protocol data unit such as UDP.¶

End systems and intermediate systems that recognize the OMNI protocol [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] can use the parcel, advanced jumbo and minimal parcel/jumbo formats specified in this document as native protocol extension headers coded within the body of the OMNI protocol data unit. This is true for both IPv6 and IPv4, where IPv4 parcels and advanced jumbos can use the same extension header formats defined for IPv6.¶

The section titled "OMNI L2 Extension Header Encapsulation" in [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] depicts protocol layering for encapsulation of IPv6 Extension Headers in IPv4 and IPv6 packets as shown in Figure 10:¶

   +---------------------------+
   |   L2 IP/Ethernet Header   |
   +---------------------------+
   | L2 UDP Header (port 8060) |
   +---------------------------+
   ~ L2 IPv6 Extension Headers ~
   +---------------------------+
   |   OAL IPv6 Encapsulation  |
   +---------------------------+
   ~    OAL IPv6 Extensions    ~
   +---------------------------+
   |                           |
   ~                           ~
   ~    Original IP Packet     ~
   ~                           ~
   |                           |
   +---------------------------+

In this encapsulation format, the IPv6 parcel, advanced jumbo and minimal parcel/jumbo extension headers specified in previous sections as well as the IPv6 (Extended) Fragment Header appear as IPv6 Extension Headers following the OMNI protocol UDP, IP or Ethernet header. The OMNI protocol requires each node to honor and implement the parcel and advanced jumbo constructs as specified in this document with reference to [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]. This includes the setting of the IP {Total, Payload} length fields as well as the settings of the parcel/jumbo options themselves.¶

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

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

See: [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] for the full specification of OMNI L2 Extension Header encapsulation and processing. All parcel and advanced jumbo implementations that recognize the OMNI protocol are required to implement those portions of the OMNI specification.¶

10. 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.¶

UDP/IPv4 parcels have been implemented in the linux-5.10.67 kernel and ION-DTN ion-open-source-4.1.0 source distributions. Patch distribution found at: "https://github.com/fltemplin/ip-parcels.git".¶

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

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.¶

11. IANA Considerations

The IANA is instructed to add a reference to this document ([RFCXXXX]) in the "MTUP - MTU Probe" and "MTUR - MTU Reply" entries in the "IP Option Numbers" section of the 'ip-parameters' registry.¶

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" section of the 'ipv6-parameters' registry.¶

The IANA is instructed to create and maintain a new registry titled "IP Parcel and Advanced Jumbo Formats and Types". For IPv4 parcels and Advanced Jumbos, the value in the 'option-length' field of Probe/Reply MTU options [RFC1063] serves as an "Option Format" code that distinguishes the various IPv4 option formats specified in this document. Initial values are given below:¶

   Value       Option Format                   Reference
   -----       -------------                   ---------
   4           Probe/Reply MTU                 [RFC1063]
   8           Parcel/Advanced Jumbo           [RFCXXXX]
   12          Parcel/Advanced Jumbo Probe     [RFCXXXX]
   16          Jumbo Reply MTU ( 4-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   20          Jumbo Reply MTU ( 8-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   24          Jumbo Reply MTU (12-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   28          Jumbo Reply MTU (16-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   3-7         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   9-11        Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   13-15       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   17-19       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   21-23       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   25-27       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   29-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]

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
   -----       -------------                   ---------
   4           IPv6 Minimum Path MTU           [RFC9268]
   6           Parcel/Advanced Jumbo           [RFCXXXX]
   10          Parcel/Advanced Jumbo Probe     [RFCXXXX]
   12          Jumbo Reply MTU ( 4-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   16          Jumbo Reply MTU ( 8-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   20          Jumbo Reply MTU (12-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   24          Jumbo Reply MTU (16-octet ID)   [RFCXXXX]
   5           Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   7-9         Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   11          Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   13-15       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   17-19       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   21-23       Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   25-253      Unassigned                      [RFCXXXX]
   254         Reserved for Experimentation    [RFCXXXX]
   255         Reserved by IANA                [RFCXXXX]

For all Parcels/Advanced Jumbos and their corresponding probes, the IP {Total, Header} Length field encodes a "Jumbo Type" value instead of an ordinary total/payload length. Initial values are given below:¶

   Value      Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----      ----------                     ---------
   0          Basic Jumbogram (IPv6 only)    [RFC2675]
   1-252      Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]
   253        Reserved for Experimentation   [RFCXXXX]
   254        Reserved by IANA               [RFCXXXX]
   255        Advanced Jumbo                 [RFCXXXX]
   256-65535  IP Parcel                      [RFCXXXX]

12. Security Considerations

In the control plane, original sources match any identifying information in received Parcel/Jumbo Reports and IP Jumbo Reply MTU options with their corresponding probes. If the information matches, the report is likely authentic. In environments where stronger authentication is necessary, nodes that send Parcel and/or Jumbo Reports can apply the message authentication services specified for AERO/OMNI.¶

In the data plane, multi-layer security solutions may be needed to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability. Since parcels and advanced jumbos are defined only for TCP and UDP, IPsec-AH/ESP [RFC4301] cannot be applied in transport mode although they can certainly be used in tunnel mode at lower layers such as for transmission of parcels and advanced jumbos over OMNI link secured spanning trees, VPNs, etc. Since the network layer does not manipulate transport layer segments, parcels and advanced jumbos 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 known to be 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. However, both IPv4 and IPv6 can robustly support high data rate reassembly using Identification Extension Options for the Internet Protocol [I-D.templin-intarea-ipid-ext].¶

Further security considerations related to IP parcels are found in the AERO/OMNI specifications.¶

13. 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: Scott Burleigh, Madhuri Madhava Badgandi, 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 accommodate sustained transmission at high data rates and devised a TCP Window Scale option to allow window sizes up to 2^30. The work also defined a Timestamp option used for round-trip time measurements and as a Protection Against Wrapped Sequences (PAWS) at high data rates. TCP users of IP parcels are strongly encouraged to adopt these measures.¶

Since TCP/IP parcels only include control bits for the first segment ("segment(0)"), nodes must regard all other segments of the same parcel as data segments. When a node breaks a TCP/IP parcel out into individual packets or sub-parcels, only the first packet/sub-parcel contains the original segment(0) and therefore only its TCP header retains the control bit settings from the original parcel TCP header. If the original TCP header included TCP options such as Maximum Segment Size (MSS), Window Scale (WS) and/or Timestamp, the node copies those same options into the options section of the new TCP header.¶

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 IP parcels, however, it will often be the case that the next TCP segment is included in the same (sub-)parcel as the segment that contained the urgent pointer such that the urgent pointer can be updated immediately.¶

Finally, if the parcel contains more than 65535 octets of data (i.e., spread across multiple segments), then the Urgent Pointer can be regarded in the same manner as for jumbograms as described in Section 5.2 of [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 or as the final segment of a 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.¶

The transport layer should also specify an L value no larger than can accommodate the maximum-sized transport and network layer headers that the source will include without causing a single segment plus headers to exceed 65535 octets. For example, if the source will include a 28 octet TCP header plus a 40 octet IPv6 header with 24 extension header octets (plus a 4 or 8 octet per-segment CRC) the transport should specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24 - 8) = 65435 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 jumbograms natively but might not be able to transit a path that includes non-jumbo links. The transport layer should therefore carefully consider the benefits of constructing parcels with extreme L values larger than the recommended maximum due to high risk of loss compared with only minor potential performance benefits.¶

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

Appendix C. Additional Parcel/Jumbo Probe Considerations

After sending a Parcel/Jumbo Probe, the source may receive a Parcel/Jumbo Report from either a router on the path or from the final destination itself. Alternatively, the source can shape its probes to request IP Jumbo Reply MTU options carried by ordinary data packets on the return path from the destination.¶

If a router or final destination receives a Parcel/Jumbo Probe but does not recognize the parcel/jumbo constructs, it will likely drop the probe without further processing and may return an ICMP error. The original source will then consider the probe as lost, but may attempt to probe again later, e.g., in case the path may have changed.¶

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

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

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

A source can request to receive two different types of parcel/jumbo path MTU feedback from the destination - a UDP encapsulated Parcel/Jumbo Report in response to a probe sent to port '9' (discard), or an ordinary data packet with an IP Jumbo Reply MTU option in response to a probe sent into an ordinary transport layer protocol flow. In some environments, one or both of these MTU feedback types may be erroneously dropped by a router along the return path. The source may therefore attempt to probe first using "method A", and then try again using "method B", e.g., if there is no response. In environments where ongoing transport protocol sessions are established, it is recommended that the source engage the IP Jumbo Reply MTU option as "method A".¶

Appendix D. IP Parcel and Advanced Jumbo Futures

Both historic and modern-day data links configure Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs) that are far smaller than the desired state for Internetworking futures. When the first Ethernet data links were deployed many decades ago, their 1500 octet MTU set a strong precedent that was widely adopted. This same size now appears as the predominant MTU limit for most paths in the Internet today, although modern links with MTUs as large as 9KB are now common.¶

In the late 1980's, the Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) standard defined a new link type with MTU slightly larger than 4500 octets. The goal of the larger MTU was to increase performance by a factor of 10 over the ubiquitous 10Mbps and 1500-octet MTU Ethernet technologies of the time. Many factors including a failure to harmonize MTU diversity and an Ethernet performance increase to 100Mbps led to poor FDDI market reception. In the next decade, the 1990's saw new initiatives including ATM/AAL5 (9KB MTU) and HiPPI (64KB MTU) which offered high-speed data link alternatives with larger MTUs but again the inability to harmonize diversity derailed their momentum. By the end of the 1990s and leading into the 2000's, evolution of the 1Gbps, 10Gbps, 100Gbps and even faster modern Ethernet data rates has obscured the fact that 21st century Internetworks still operate with 20th century MTUs.¶

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

In addition to the clear near-term benefits, IP parcels and advanced jumbos will increase performance to new levels as future links with very large MTUs in excess of 65535 octets begin to emerge. With such large MTUs, the traditional CRC-32 (or even CRC-64) error checking with errored packet discard discipline will no longer apply for large parcels and advanced jumbos. Instead, packets larger than a link-specific threshold will include Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes so that errored packets can be repaired at the receiver's data link layer then delivered to higher layers rather than being discarded and triggering retransmission of large amounts of data. Even if the FEC repairs are incomplete or imperfect, all parcels can still be delivered to higher layers where the individual segment checksums will detect and discard any damaged data not repaired by the link and/or adaptation layers (advanced jumbos on the other hand would require complete FEC repair).¶

These new "super-links" will begin to appear mostly in the network edges (e.g., high-performance data centers), however some space-domain links that extend over enormous distances may also benefit. For this reason, a common use case will include super-links in the edge networks of both parties of an end-to-end session with an OMNI link connecting the two over wide area Internetworks. Medium- to moderately large-sized IP parcels over OMNI links will already provide considerable performance benefits for wide-area end-to-end communications while truly large parcels and advanced jumbos over super-links can provide boundless increases for localized bulk transfers in edge networks or for deep space long haul transmissions. The ability to grow and adapt without practical bound enabled by IP parcels and advanced jumbos will inevitably encourage new data link development leading to future innovations in new markets that will revolutionize the Internet.¶

Until these new links begin to emerge, however, parcels will already provide a tremendous benefit to end systems by allowing applications to send and receive segment buffers as large as 65535 octets or even larger in a single system call. By expanding the current operating system call data copy limit from its current 16-bit length to a 32-bit length, applications will be able to send and receive maximum-length parcel buffers even if parcellation is needed to fit within the interface MTU. For applications such as the Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol [RFC9171], this will allow transfer of entire large protocol objects (such as DTN bundles) in a single system call.¶

Continuing into the future, a natural progression beginning with IP packets then moving to IP parcels should also lead to wide scale adoption of advanced jumbos. Since advanced jumbos carry only a single very large transport layer data segment, loss of even a single jumbogram could invoke a major retransmission event. But, with the advent of forward error correcting codes, future link types could offer truly large MTUs. Advanced jumbos sent over such links would then be equipped with an error correction "repair kit" that the link far end can use to patch the jumbogram allowing it to be processed further by upper layers. Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) over high-speed and long-delay optical links provides an example environment suitable for such large packets, where data rates in excess of 100Gbps should be an achievable near-term goal.¶

Very clearly, IP parcels and advanced jumbos represent a revolutionary approach to integrity assurance in packet forwarding. In current practice, link level integrity is verified at each hop in the path with the considerable expense of performing the integrity checks felt by all intermediate systems. Moreover, when an integrity check fails it is often as result of a small number of corrupted bits while the vast majority of the packet contains good data.¶

The IP parcel and advanced jumbo facilities excuse intermediate systems from the need to perform link layer integrity checks and instead defer integrity verification to the final destination which is solely qualified to coordinate any necessary corruption and/or loss recovery. This results in better performance for all end and intermediate systems in the path while eliminating the vast majority of unnecessary retransmissions.¶

Appendix E. Change Log

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

Changes from earlier versions:¶

• Submit for review.¶

Author's Address