<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-templin-6man-parcels2-20"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Parcels and AJs">IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)</title>

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

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

          <city>Seattle</city>

          <region>WA</region>

          <code>98124</code>

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

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

    <date day="1" month="January" year="2025"/>

    <keyword>I-D</keyword>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

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

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>IPv6 packets <xref target="RFC8200"/> contain a single unit of transport
      layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss.
      Transport layer protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
      <xref target="RFC9293"/> and reliable transport protocol users of the
      User Datagram Protocol (UDP) <xref target="RFC0768"/> (including QUIC
      <xref target="RFC9000"/>, LTP <xref target="RFC5326"/> and others)
      prepare data units known as segments which the network layer packages
      into individual IPv6 packets each containing only a single segment. This
      document presents a new construct termed the "IPv6 Parcel" which permits
      a single packet to include multiple segments. The parcel is essentially
      a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers appearing
      only once but with possibly multiple segments included. IPv6 parcels
      represent a network encapsulation for the multi-segment buffers managed
      by Generic Segment Offload (GSO) and Generic Receive Offload (GRO);
      these buffers shall be termed "parcel buffers" or simply "parcels"
      which become "IP parcels" following encapsulation in {TCP,UDP}/IP.</t>

      <t>Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a data
      buffer (or buffer chain) containing at most 64 consecutive transport
      layer protocol segments that can be broken out into individual packets
      or smaller sub-parcels as necessary. All non-final segments must be
      equal in length while the final segment must not be larger. The transport
      layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s), number of segments and
      non-final segment size to the network layer. The network layer next
      either performs packetization to forward each segment as an individual
      IPv6 packet or appends a single {TCP,UDP} header and a single IPv6 header
      plus extensions that identify this as a parcel and not an ordinary packet.
      Any included {TCP,UDP} options are associated with all segments,
      therefore parcels may only include segments that employ compatible
      options.</t>

      <t>The network layer then forwards each parcel over consecutive
      parcel-capable links in a path until they arrive at a node with
      a next hop link that does not support parcels, a parcel-capable
      link with a size restriction, or an ingress Overlay Multilink
      Network (OMNI) Interface <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>
      connection to an OMNI link that spans intermediate Internetworks.
      In the first case, the original source or next hop router applies
      packetization to break the parcel into individual IPv6 packets.
      In the second case, the node applies network layer parcellation
      to form smaller sub-parcels. In the final case, the OMNI interface
      applies adaptation layer parcellation to form still smaller
      sub-parcels, then applies adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulation
      and fragmentation if necessary. The node then forwards the
      resulting packets/parcels/fragments to the next hop.</t>

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

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

      <t>The following sections discuss rationale for adopting parcels
      and AJs as core elements of the Internet architecture, as well as
      the actual protocol constructs and operational procedures involved.
      Parcels and AJs provide essential data transit for improved performance,
      efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission
      Units (MTUs). A new Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) link service model
      for parcels and AJs further supports delay/disruption tolerance especially
      suited for air/land/sea/space mobility applications. These services should
      inspire future innovation in applications, transport protocols, operating
      systems, network equipment and data links for Internetworking performance
      maximization.</t>
    </section>

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

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

      <t>The term "Advanced Jumbo (AJ)" refers to a parcel variation
      modeled from the basic IPv6 jumbogram construct defined in
      <xref target="RFC2675"/>. AJs include a single transport layer
      protocol segment the same as for basic IPv6 jumbograms. Unlike
      basic IPv6 jumbograms which are always 64KB or larger, however,
      AJs can range in size from as small as the headers plus a
      minimal or even null payload to as large as 2**32 octets
      minus headers.</t>

      <t>The term "link" is defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> as:
      "a communication facility or medium over which nodes can communicate
      at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IPv6. Examples
      are Ethernets (simple or bridged); PPP links; X.25, Frame Relay, or
      ATM networks; and internet-layer or higher-layer "tunnels", such as
      tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 itself".</t>

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

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

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

      <t>The term "Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)" is used consistently with
      its application in widely deployed Internetworking services. Parcels
      that employ end-to-end CRC checks use the CRC32C <xref target=
      "RFC3385"/> or CRC64E <xref target="ECMA-182"/> standards (see:
      <xref target="integrity"/>). AJs that employ end-to-end integrity
      checks include either a CRC or message digest calculated according
      to the MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref target="RFC3174"/> or
      US Secure Hash <xref target="RFC6234"/> algorithms.</t>

      <t>The terms "application layer (L5 and higher)", "transport layer
      (L4)", "network layer (L3)", "(data) link layer (L2)" and "physical
      layer (L1)" are used consistently with common Internetworking
      terminology, with the understanding that reliable delivery protocol
      users of UDP are considered as transport layer elements. The OMNI
      specification further defines an "adaptation layer" logically positioned
      below the network layer but above the link layer (which may include
      physical links and Internet- or higher-layer tunnels). The adaptation
      layer is not associated with a layer number itself and is simply known
      as "the layer below L3 but above L2". A network interface is a node's
      attachment to a link (via L2), and an OMNI interface is therefore
      a node's attachment to an OMNI link (via the adaptation layer).</t>

      <t> The term "parcel-capable link/path" refers to paths that transit
      interfaces to adaptation layer and/or link layer media (either physical
      or virtual) capable of transiting {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packets that employ the
      parcel/AJ constructs specified in this document. The source and each
      router in the path has a "next hop link" that forwards parcels/AJs
      toward the final destination, while each router and the final destination
      has a "previous hop link" that accepts en route parcels/AJs. Each next
      hop link must be capable of forwarding parcels/AJs (after first applying
      packetization or parcellation if necessary) with segment lengths no
      larger than can transit the link. (Note: parcels that do not include
      a Parcel Payload Hop-by-Hop (HBH) Option are compatible with any IPv6
      Internetworking path with sufficient MTU even if some or all of the
      routers in the path do not recognize the option.)</t>

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

      <t>The Internetworking term "Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)" is
      widely understood to mean the largest packet size that can transit
      a single link ("link MTU") or an entire path ("path MTU") without
      requiring network layer fragmentation. The "Parcel Path MTU"
      value returned during parcel path qualification determines the
      maximum sized parcel/AJ segment that can transit the leading
      portion of the path up to a router that cannot forward the
      parcel/AJ further, while the "Residual Path MTU" determines
      the maximum-sized conventional packet that can transit the
      remainder of the path following packetization. (Note that for
      paths that include a significant number of routers that do
      not recognize the parcel construct the Residual Path MTU may
      be over-estimated.)</t>

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

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

      <t>The terms "fragmentation" and "reassembly" follow exactly from
      their definitions in the IPv6 standard <xref target="RFC8200"/>.
      In particular, OMNI interfaces support IPv6 encapsulation and
      fragmentation as an adaptation layer process that can transit
      packet/parcel/AJ sizes that exceed the underlying Internetwork
      path MTU. OMNI interface fragmentation/reassembly occurs at a
      lower layer of the protocol stack than packetization/restoration
      and/or parcellation/reunification and therefore provides a
      complementary service. Note that parcels and AJs that include
      an extended payload length are ineligible for fragmentation
      unless they are presented for OMNI encapsulation and are no
      larger than 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>"Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO)" <xref
      target="I-D.templin-6man-aero3"/> and the "Overlay Multilink Network
      Interface (OMNI)" <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/> provide an
      adaptation layer framework for transmission of parcels/AJs over one or
      more concatenated Internetworks. AERO/OMNI will provide an operational
      environment for parcels/AJs beginning from the earliest deployment
      phases and extending indefinitely to accommodate continuous future
      growth. As more and more parcel/AJ-capable links are enabled (e.g.,
      in data centers, wireless edge networks, space-domain optical links,
      etc.) AERO/OMNI will continue to provide an essential service for
      Internetworking performance maximization.</t>

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

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

      <t>When present, the "Parcel Integrity Block (PIB)" follows
      the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers of each parcel/AJ and includes
      integrity check fields for each parcel segment.</t>

      <t>The "Parcel Buffer (PB)" includes the concatenated upper
      layer protocol segments of the parcel. The PB follows the
      PIB when present; otherwise it follows the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      headers.</t>

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

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

    <section anchor="reqs" title="Requirements">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
      <xref target="RFC2119"/><xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

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

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs are similar to the basic jumbogram
      specification found in <xref target="RFC2675"/>, but observe
      the specifications in this document. Most notably, IPv6 parcels
      and AJs include a new a Destination Option and may also include
      a new Hop-by-Hop (HBH) Option when link-layer support is required.</t>

      <t>All IPv6 parcels and AJs include exactly one Parcel Payload
      Destination Option and at most one Parcel Payload HBH option;
      if more than one is included, the first is processed and the
      others are ignored. Only those parcels/AJs intended for paths
      that support the new link service model and/or larger sizes
      include the HBH Option.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs that include a Parcel Payload HBH
      option MAY also include a Parcel Probe HBH or Destination
      option but if so the Payload option SHOULD appear before
      the Probe.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs SHOULD include at most one Parcel
      Probe HBH or Destination option. If more are included,
      the first is processed and all others ignored or
      regarded as an unrecognized option.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs are not limited only to segment sizes
      that exceed 65535 octets; instead, parcels can be as small
      as the packet and parcel headers plus a NULL singleton
      segment. Parcels that are no larger than 65535 octets
      and set the IPv6 Payload Length to a non-zero value may
      be subject to source network layer fragmentation the
      same as for ordinary IPv6 packets.</t>

      <t>For further IPv6 HBH Option considerations, see: <xref
      target="RFC9673"/>. For IPv6 extension header limits, see:
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits"/>. For IPv4 parcel
      and advanced jumbo considerations, see:
      <xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="aero-omni" title="Background and Motivation">
      <t>Studies have shown that applications can improve their performance by
      sending and receiving larger packets due to reduced numbers of system
      calls and interrupts as well as larger atomic data copies between kernel
      and user space. Larger packets also result in reduced numbers of network
      device interrupts and better network utilization (e.g., due to header
      overhead reduction) in comparison with smaller packets. However, the
      most prominent performance increases were observed by increasing the
      transport layer protocol segment size even if doing so invoked network
      layer fragmentation.</t>

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

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

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

      <t>A limiting consideration for sending large packets is that they are
      often lost at links with MTU restrictions, and the resulting Packet Too
      Big (PTB) messages <xref target="RFC4443"/><xref target="RFC8201"/> may
      be lost somewhere in the return path to the original source. This path
      MTU "black hole" condition can negatively impact performance unless
      robust path probing techniques are used, however optimal performance
      always occurs when loss of packets due to size restrictions is minimized.</t>

      <t>These considerations therefore motivate a design where transport
      protocols can employ segment sizes as large as 65535 octets (minus
      headers) while parcels that carry multiple segments may themselves
      be significantly larger. (Transport layer protocols can also use AJs
      to transit even larger singleton segments.) Parcels allow the receiving
      transport layer protocol entity to process multiple segments in parallel
      instead of one at a time per existing practices. Parcels therefore support
      improvements in performance, integrity and efficiency for the original
      source, final destination and networked path as a whole. This is true
      even if the network or lower layers need to apply packetization/restoration,
      parcellation/reunification and/or fragmentation/reassembly.</t>

      <t>An analogy: when a consumer orders 50 small items from a major online
      retailer, the retailer does not ship the order in 50 separate small
      boxes. Instead, the retailer packs as many of the small items as
      possible into one or a few larger boxes (i.e., parcels) then places the
      parcels on a semi-truck or airplane. The parcels may then pass through
      one or more regional distribution centers where they may be repackaged
      into different parcel configurations and forwarded further until they
      are finally delivered to the consumer. But most often, the consumer will
      only find one or a few parcels at their doorstep and not 50 separate
      small boxes. This flexible parcel delivery service greatly reduces
      shipping and handling cost for all including the retailer, regional
      distribution centers and finally the consumer.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="linksrv" title="A Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Link Model">
      <t>The classic Internetworking link service model requires each link
      in the path to apply a link-layer integrity check often termed a "Frame
      Check Sequence (FCS)" over the entire length of the frame. The link near-end
      calculates and appends an FCS trailer to each packet pending transmission,
      and the link far-end verifies the FCS upon packet reception. If verification
      fails, the link far-end unconditionally discards the packet. This process
      is repeated for each link in the path so that only packets that pass all
      link-layer checks over their full lengths are delivered to the final
      destination. (Note that Internet- or higher-layer tunnels may traverse
      many underlying physical links that each apply their own FCS in series.)</t>

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

      <t>IPv6 parcels/AJs that engage this DTN link model include a
      limited hop-by-hop integrity check that covers only the headers
      plus a leading portion of the payload. Each IPv6 parcel/AJ also
      includes per-segment end-to-end Cyclic Redundancy Checks (CRCs)
      or message digests plus Internet checksums to be verified
      by the final destination. For each parcel/AJ admitted under the
      DTN link model, the original source applies Forward Error Correction
      (FEC) encoding <xref target="RFC5052"/><xref target="RFC5445"/>
      if necessary. Each delay/disruption challenged link near-end in
      the path then applies its standard link-layer FCS for only the
      leading portion upon transmission according to an Integrity
      Limit specified by the source then writes the FCS as a trailer
      following the end of the parcel/AJ payload.</t>

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

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

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

      <t>IPv6 parcels and AJs therefore provide a revolutionary
      advancement for delay/disruption tolerance in air/land/sea/space
      mobile Internetworking applications. As the Internet continues to
      evolve from its more stable fixed terrestrial network origins to
      one where more and more nodes are exposed to extreme conditions,
      this new link service model shifts bulk error detection and
      correction responsibilities to end systems that are uniquely
      qualified to take corrective actions. This is true even for
      paths where only one or a few links engage the new reduced
      coverage link integrity service model, while all other links
      can continue to employ the full frame checking services as
      they have always done.</t>

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

    <section anchor="parcels" title="IPv6 Parcel Formation">
      <t>A transport protocol entity of the source identified by
      its 5-tuple forms a Parcel Buffer (PB) by concatenating "J"
      transport layer protocol segments (for J between 1 and 64)
      into a contiguous buffer or chain of smaller buffers. All
      non-final segments MUST be of equal length "L" while the
      final segment of length "K" MUST NOT be larger and MAY be
      smaller. The overall parcel length (including headers) is
      then represented by the value "M".</t>

      <t>The source sets L to a 16-bit non-final segment length
      of at least 1 but no larger than 65535 octets minus the
      lengths of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) and IPv6
      header (plus extensions) (see: <xref target="borderline"/>).
      The transport layer protocol entity then presents the
      resulting PB and non-final segment length L to the network
      layer, noting that the combined PB length may exceed 65535
      octets when there are sufficient segments of a large enough
      size.</t>

      <t>If the next hop link is not parcel capable and/or the
      path MTU is insufficient, the network layer of the source
      performs packetization to package each PB segment as an
      individual IPv6 packet as discussed in <xref target=
      "xmit-singleton"/>. Otherwise, the source optionally
      prepends a Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) before the PB that
      includes J N-octet CRCs followed by J 2-octet Internet
      Checksums. When present, the PIB appears as shown
      in <xref target="pcb"/>:

      <figure anchor="pcb"
              title="Parcel Integrity Block (PIB) Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~           CRC (0) through CRC (J-1) (N octets each)           ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~     Checksum (0) through Checksum (J-1) (2 octets each)       ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then prepends a single full {TCP,UDP} header
      and a single full IPv6 header that includes a Parcel Payload
      Destination Option formatted as shown in <xref target=
      "parcel-dest"/>:

      <figure anchor="parcel-dest"
              title="IPv6 Parcel Payload Destination Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Segment Length (16 bits)   |   Nsegs   |   Index   |F|P|S|U|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>In this encoding, the source includes the Parcel Payload
      Option as an IPv6 Destination Option with Option Type "rest" set
      to '00010', "action" set to '11' and "change" set to '0' (i.e.,
      as Hex Value 0xC2). Note that this is the same Option Type as
      for the Jumbo Payload option specified in <xref target="RFC2675"/>
      but appearing as a Destination option and not a HBH option. All
      destinations must therefore consistently accept or discard
      packets with Destination option 0xC2 according to this
      specification.</t>

      <t>The source then sets Opt Data Len to 4 and sets Segment
      Length to a 16-bit non-final segment length between 1 and
      65535. The source also sets a 6-bit Nsegs field to the value
      (J-1) and sets a 6-bit Index field to the index (between 0
      and J-1) of the first PB segment. The source next sets the
      F flag to 1 if a Forward Error Correction (FEC) header follows
      (see: <xref target="jumbo"/>) and sets the P flag to 1 if a
      PIB is included. The source finally sets the S flag to 0 if
      the final parcel segment is included (otherwise sets S to 1)
      and sets the U flag to 1 if a trailing UDP option length
      field is included.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is present, the CRC length "N" is 4 octets
      for CRC32 when Segment Length is no larger than 9216 or 8
      octets for CRC64 when Segment Length is larger. When Segment
      Length, Nsegs are S are all set to 0, the Parcel appears in
      the form of an Advanced Jumbo as specified in <xref target=
      "jumbo"/>.</t>

      <t>The source then either includes or omits a Parcel
      Payload HBH Option as shown in <xref target="parcel-fmt"/>.
      <figure anchor="parcel-fmt" title="IPv6 Parcel Payload HBH Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Parcel Payload Length (32 bits)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Integrity Limit (32 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>When the source includes a Parcel Payload HBH
      Option, it sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action"
      to '00' and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then
      sets Opt Data Len to either 4, 8 or 12. If Opt Data Len is
      4, only the Parcel Payload Length is included. If Opt Data
      Len is 8, an Integrity Limit fields is also included. If Opt
      Data Len is 12, the Identification is also included. If Opt
      Data Len includes any other value, the HBH option is ignored.
      (Note: The destination plus all intermediate nodes must
      therefore consistently accept, ignore or discard packets
      with HBH option 0x02 according to this specification.
      Intermediate nodes must not regard the presence of the
      option as a reason to submit the packet for slow path
      processing.)</t>

      <t>The source then sets the IPv6 Payload Length field to
      0 and sets Parcel Payload Length to a 32-bit value M that
      encodes the length of the IPv6 extension headers plus the
      length of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options and option length
      field when present) plus the length of the PIB plus the combined
      lengths of all concatenated segments. This arrangement will
      cause any intermediate systems that do not recognize the
      option to truncate the parcel to only the IPv6 header due
      to the IPv6 Payload Length of 0.</t>

      <t>If an Integrity Limit is included, the source next
      sets Integrity Limit to the 32-bit length of the leading
      portion of the parcel subject to hop-by-hop integrity checks
      by any delay/disruption challenged links in the path. (Other
      link types can continue to perform integrity checking over
      the entire Parcel Payload Length according to the classic
      link model.) Integrity Limit therefore determines the leading
      length of the parcel subject to link layer FCS protection at
      links that engage the new link service model while Parcel
      Payload Length determines the end of the parcel payload
      after which the link layer appends the trailing FCS itself.
      Integrity Limit therefore must be less than or equal to
      Parcel Payload Length.</t>

      <t>The source finally sets an Identification value for this
      parcel/AJ; if the Parcel Payload HBH option includes an
      Identification field, the source writes the value into the
      field.</t>

      <t>{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 parcels produced by the transport and
      network layers of the source therefore have the structures
      shown in <xref target="struct"/>:</t>
      <t><figure anchor="struct" title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Structure">
          <artwork><![CDATA[       TCP/IPv6 Parcel Structure          UDP/IPv6 Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~  IPv6 Hdr (plus extensions)  ~   ~  IPv6 Hdr (plus extensions)  ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~   ~    Parcel Integrity Block    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~         More Segments        ~   ~         More Segments        ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~   ~    Segment J-1 (K octets)    ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
                                      ~     UDP Options / Length     ~
                                      +------------------------------+]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

    <section anchor="tcp-parcel" title="TCP Parcels">
      <t>A TCP Parcel is an IPv6 parcel that includes an IPv6 header
      plus extensions with a Parcel Payload Destination Option formed
      as specified in <xref target="parcels"/>. The IPv6 header
      plus extensions is then followed by a TCP header plus
      options (20 or more octets) followed by an optional PIB then
      followed by the J consecutive PB segments. Each non-final
      segment is L octets in length and the final segment is K
      octets in length. The value L is encoded in the Segment
      Length field while the overall length of the parcel is
      determined by the payload length M.</t>

      <t>When the Parcel Payload HBH Option is absent, the source
      sets the IPv6 Payload Length the same as for an ordinary IPv6
      packet. When the HBH option is present, the source instead
      sets the IPv6 Payload Length to 0. The source then sets the
      Sequence Number field in the TCP header to identify the
      first sequence numbered octet of the first segment present;
      all additional segments present must then begin on successive
      sequence number offsets according to L. The destination and
      any intermediate systems can then determine the starting
      sequence number for each segment by examining the Segment
      Length and Index values with respect to the first segment.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is absent, the source then calculates the
      Internet checksum over the entire length of the parcel the
      same as for an ordinary TCP packet and writes the value in
      the TCP checksum field.</t>

      <t>When the PIB is present, the source instead calculates
      the Internet checksum only over the TCP/IP headers and
      writes the value into the TCP checksum field. The source
      then calculates the Internet checksum for each Segment(i)
      (for i between 0 and (J-1)) beginning with the Sequence
      number then writes the value into the PIB Checksum(i)
      field. The source then calculates the CRC32/64 beginning
      with Checksum(i) and extending over the length of
      Segment(i), then writes the value into the PIB
      CRC(i) field.</t>

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

      <t>Note: The parcel TCP header Source Port, Destination Port
      and Sequence Number fields apply to each parcel segment
      (modulo Segment Length and Index), while the TCP control
      bits and all other fields apply only to the first segment
      (i.e., "Segment(0)"). Therefore, only parcel Segment(0)
      may be associated with control bit settings while all
      other segment(i)'s must be simple data segments.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="udp-parcel" title="UDP Parcels">
      <t>A UDP Parcel is an IPv6 Parcel that includes an IPv6 header plus
      extensions with a Parcel Payload Destination Option formed as shown
      in <xref target="parcels"/>. The IPv6 header plus extensions
      is then followed by an 8-octet UDP header followed by an optional
      PIB followed by a PB containing J transport layer segments followed
      by any UDP options followed by a trailing 2-octet length field when
      necessary (see below). Each PB segment must begin with a
      transport-specific start delimiter (e.g., a segment identifier,
      a sequence number, etc.) included by the transport layer user of
      UDP. The length of the first segment L is encoded in the Segment
      Length field while the overall length of the parcel is determined
      by the parcel payload length M as above.</t>

      <t>The source prepares UDP Parcels in an alternative adaptation of
      UDP jumbograms <xref target="RFC2675"/> . When the Parcel Payload
      HBH Option is absent, the source sets the IPv6 Payload Length
      normally. When a Parcel Payload HBH option is present, the source
      instead sets the IPv6 Payload Length to 0.</t>

      <t>The source then sets the UDP header Length field to the length
      of the UDP header plus the lengths of the PIB plus all PB segments.
      If this length exceeds 65535 octets, the source instead sets UDP
      Length to 0. When UDP options are present but the IPv6 Payload
      Length is set to 0, the source also includes a 2-octet trailing
      "UDP Option Length" field that encodes the length of the UDP
      options which immediately precede it plus the length of the
      UDP Option Length field itself (i.e., for a minimum value of
      2 octets).</t>

      <t>When UDP checksums are disabled, the source writes the value
      '0' in the checksum field. When UDP checksums are enabled and
      the PIB is absent, the source calculates the UDP checksum the
      same as for an ordinary UDP packet and writes the value into
      the UDP checksum field while rewriting calculated 0 values as
      '0xffff'. When the PIB is present, the source instead calculates
      the UDP checksum only over the UDP/IP headers and writes this
      value into the UDP checksum field with '0' written as '0xffff'.</t>

      <t>The source next populates the PIB by calculating the
      Internet checksum over the length of each Segment(i) and
      writes the value into the Checksum(i) field while rewriting
      calculated 0 values as '0xffff'. The source then calculates
      the CRC32/64 beginning with Checksum(i) and extending over
      the length of Segment(i), then writes the value into CRC(i).</t>

      <t>For the final segment, the source extends the CRC
      calculation beyond the length of the segment to also include
      the UDP options plus UDP Option Length field when either
      or both are present. (Note that the length of the UDP
      Option Length field itself is also included in the
      Parcel Payload Length.)</t>

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

    <section anchor="j-k-calc" title="Calculating K">
      <t>The parcel source unambiguously encodes the values J,
      L and M in parcel header fields as specified above. The
      value K is not encoded in a header and must therefore be
      calculated by nodes that process the parcel. A temporary
      value T is calculated as the payload length M minus the
      length of the IPv6 extension headers minus the length of
      the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options and option length when
      present) minus the length of the PIB. K is then calculated
      as the remainder of T divided by the Segment Length.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit" title="Transmission of IPv6 Parcels">
      <t>When the network layer of the source assembles a {TCP,UDP}/IPv6
      parcel it fully populates all IPv6 header fields including the source
      and destination addresses, then sets the Parcel Payload Destination
      Option fields as above with Segment Length L set to a value between
      1 and 65535. If it will also include a Parcel Payload HBH Option,
      the source then sets Hop Limit to the Parcel Limit value discovered
      through probing (see: <xref target="probe"/>); otherwise, it sets
      Hop Limit the same as for an ordinary IPv6 packet.</t>

      <t>The source also maintains a randomly-initialized 4-octet
      (32-bit) Identification value for each destination. For each
      parcel or AJ transmission, the source sets the Identification
      to the current cached value for this destination and
      increments the cached value by 1 (modulo 2**32). (The source
      can then reset the cached value to a new random number when
      necessary, e.g., to maintain an unpredictable profile.) If
      the parcel/AJ includes a Parcel Probe Option or a Parcel
      Payload HBH Option with an Identification field, the source
      writes the current Identification value into the HBH option
      field of the same name.</t>

      <t>The source also populates all {TCP,UDP} header and option
      fields, includes a populated PIB/PB then presents the parcel
      to an interface for transmission to the next hop the same
      as for an ordinary packet. If the new link model and/or
      an extended payload length field are required, the source
      instead first inserts a Parcel Payload HBH Option, sets
      the IPv6 Payload Length to 0 and forwards the parcel
      over the parcel-capable path.</t>

      <t>For ordinary interface attachments to parcel-capable links,
      the source simply admits each parcel into the interface the same
      as for any IPv6 packet where it may be forwarded by one or more
      routers over additional consecutive parcel-capable links possibly
      even traversing the entire forward path to the final destination.
      Note that any node in the path that does not recognize the parcel
      construct may either drop it and return an ICMP Parameter Problem
      message or attempt to forward it as a (truncated) packet based
      on the IPv6 Payload Length set to 0.</t>

      <t>When the Parcel Payload HBH option Integrity Limit field
      is present, each delay/disruption challenged link in the path
      checks integrity of only that leading portion of the parcel/AJ
      even if the remainder of the payload contains accumulated link
      errors. 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 while leaving integrity assurance for the remainder as an
      end-to-end service (see: <xref target="integrity"/>).</t>

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

      <t>Parcel probes that test the forward path's ability to pass
      parcels/AJs include "Parcel Path MTU" and "Residual Path MTU"
      fields as discussed in <xref target="probe"/>. Each router in
      the path may rewrite the fields to progressively smaller values
      in a similar fashion as for <xref target="RFC9268"/>. The fact
      that the probe transited a previous hop link provides sufficient
      evidence of forward progress since path MTU determination is
      unidirectional in the forward path only. Following successful
      parcel probing, each parcel/AJ transmission may include
      {TCP,UDP} segment size probes used for packetization layer
      path MTU discovery per <xref target="RFC4821"/><xref target=
      "RFC8899"/>. Such probes may be necessary to refine the
      Residual Path MTU, for which parcel probes can only provide
      an estimate.</t>

      <t>When a router or destination receives a parcel/probe
      with a Parcel Probe HBH Option, it first compares Check
      with the IPv6 header Hop Limit if the values differ, the node
      drops the parcel/probe and returns a negative Jumbo Report
      (see: <xref target="report"/>) subject to rate limiting. For
      all other intact parcels, each router next compares the value
      L with the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is parcel
      capable but configures an MTU too small to admit a parcel
      with a single segment of length L the router returns a
      positive Jumbo Report (subject to rate limiting) with
      MTU set to the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is not
      parcel capable and configures an MTU too small to pass an individual
      IPv6 packet with a single segment of length L the router instead
      returns a positive Parcel Report (subject to rate limiting) with
      MTU set to the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link is parcel
      capable the router forwards the parcel/probe to the next hop
      while decrementing both the IPv6 header Hop Limit field and
      Check (when present) by 1.</t>

      <t>If the router recognizes parcels but the next hop link in the
      path does not, or if the entire parcel would exceed the next hop
      link MTU, the router instead opens the parcel. The router then
      forwards each enclosed segment in individual IPv6 packets or in
      a set of smaller sub-parcels that each contain a subset of the
      original parcel's segments. If the next hop link is via an OMNI
      interface, the router instead follows OMNI Adaptation Layer
      procedures. These considerations are discussed in detail in
      the following sections.</t>

    <section anchor="xmit-singleton" title="Packetization over Non-Parcel Links">
      <t>For transmission of individual packets over links that do not
      support parcels, the source or router (i.e., the node) invokes
      packetization the same as for GSO. Routers also invoke packetization
      if decrementing the parcel Hop Limit would cause it to become 0.
      Otherwise, the node forwards the intact (sub-)parcel or performs
      parcellation (see: <xref target="probe"/> for discussion of Parcel
      Limit).</t>

      <t>To initiate packetization, the node first determines whether an
      individual packet with segment of length L can fit within the next
      hop link/path MTU. If an individual packet would be too large the
      node drops the parcel and returns a positive Parcel Report message
      (subject to rate limiting) with MTU set to the next hop link/path
      MTU and with the leading portion of the parcel beginning with the
      IPv6 header as the "packet in error".</t>

      <t>If an individual packet can be accommodated, the node next
      removes the Parcel HBH and Destination Options then removes
      the PIB (if present) while retaining the contents for integrity
      reference. When the PIB is present, the node first verifies the
      CRCs of each segment(i) (for i between 0 and (J-1)) and discards
      any segment(i)'s with incorrect CRCs. The node then copies
      the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers followed by segment (i) into J
      individual packets ("packet(i)"). Each such packet(i) will
      be subject to the independent link-layer CRC verifications
      of each remaining link in the path.</t>

      <t>For each packet(i), the node then clears the TCP control bits
      in all but packet(0), and includes only those {TCP,UDP} options
      that are permitted to appear in data segments in all but packet(0)
      which may also include control segment options (see: <xref
      target="extend"/> for further discussion). The node then sets
      IPv6 Payload Length for each packet(i) based on the length of
      segment(i) according to <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>For each packet(i), the node then inserts a single Parcel
      Parameters Destination Option. The option is formatted as shown
      in <xref target="new-tcp"/>:</t>

        <t><figure anchor="new-tcp" title="Parcel Parameters Destination Option">
        <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Index  |R|S|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The node then sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action"
      to '00' and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then
      sets Opt Data Len to 5. The node includes the Identification
      values corresponding to the original parcel then sets Index
      to 'i' and sets S to 1 for non-final packet(i)'s or to 0 for
      the final packet(i) of the final (sub-)parcel. (If the original
      parcel does not contain an identification, the node instead
      sets Identification to a random value.) The node should include
      only a single Parcel Parameters Destination Option; if multiple
      are included, the first is processed and all others ignored.</t>

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

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

      <t>When a PIB is present, the node reuses the PIB checksum value
      for each segment in the checksum calculation process. The node
      first calculates the Internet checksum over the new packet
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers then adds the cached segment checksum
      value. For UDP, if a per-segment Checksum was 0 the node instead
      writes the value 0 in the Checksum field of the corresponding
      UDP/IPv6 packet. The node then forwards each IPv6 packet to 
      the next hop.</t>

      <t>Note: Packets resulting from packetization may be too large
      to transit the residual path to the final destination, such
      that a router may drop the packet(s) and possibly also return
      an ordinary ICMP PTB message. Since these messages cannot be
      authenticated or may be lost on the return path, the original
      source should take care in setting a segment size as large as
      the Residual Path MTU unless as part of an active probing
      service.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-subparcels" title="Parcellation over Parcel-capable Links">
      <t>For transmission of smaller sub-parcels over parcel-capable links, the
      source or intermediate system (i.e., the node) first determines whether a
      single segment of length L can fit within the next hop link MTU if packaged
      as a (singleton) sub-parcel. If a singleton sub-parcel would be too large,
      the node returns a positive Jumbo Report message (subject to rate limiting)
      with MTU set to the next hop link MTU and containing the leading portion of
      the parcel beginning with the IPv6 header then drops the parcel. Otherwise,
      the node employs network layer parcellation to break the original parcel
      into smaller groups of segments that can traverse the path as whole
      (sub-)parcels.</t>

      <t>The node first determines the number of segments of length
      L that can fit into each sub-parcel under the size constraints. For example,
      if the node determines that each sub-parcel can contain 3 segments of length
      L, it creates sub-parcels with the first containing Segments 0-2, the second
      containing 3-5, the third containing 6-8, etc., and with the final containing
      any remaining Segments. When a PIB is present, the node also includes a PIB
      in each sub-parcel that contains the corresponding CRC and Checksum fields
      for its included segments (where the per-segment fields of the sub-parcel
      PIB are copied from the PIB of the original parcel).</t>

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

      <t>The node next appends identical {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers
      (including the Parcel Payload Options plus any other extensions)
      to each sub-parcel while resetting Index, S, and Parcel Payload
      Length in each as above. The node also sets the Hop Limit
      in each sub-parcel to the same value that occurred in the
      original (sub-)parcel.</t>

      <t>For TCP, the node sets the TCP sequence number to the sequence
      number of the first octet found in the first (sub-)parcel segment
      which can be determined from the original parcel's sequence number
      plus the Segment Length and Index for this new first segment. The
      node then clears the TCP control bits in all sub-parcels except
      the first and includes only those {TCP,UDP} options that are
      permitted to appear in data segments in all non-first sub-parcels
      (while the first may also include control segment options). The
      node then resets the {TCP,UDP} Checksum according to ordinary
      parcel formation procedures (see above). The node finally sets
      PMTU to the next hop link MTU then forwards each (sub-)parcel
      to the parcel-capable next hop.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="xmit-omni" title="OMNI Interface Parcellation and Reunification">
      <t>For transmission of original parcels or sub-parcels over OMNI
      interfaces, the node admits all parcels into the interface
      unconditionally since the OMNI interface MTU is unlimited.
      The OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) of this First Hop Segment
      (FHS) OAL source node then forwards the parcel to the next
      OAL hop which may be either an intermediate node or a Last
      Hop Segment (LHS) OAL destination. OMNI interface parcellation
      and reunification procedures are specified in detail in the
      remainder of this section, while parcel encapsulation and
      fragmentation procedures are specified in <xref target=
      "I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>.</t>

      <t>When the OAL source forwards a parcel (whether generated
      by a local application or forwarded over a network path that
      transited one or more parcel-capable links), it first assigns a
      monotonically-incrementing (modulo 64) adaptation layer Parcel ID
      (note that this value differs from the (Parcel) Index encoded in
      the Parcel Payload Option). If the parcel is larger than the OAL
      maximum segment size of 65535 octets, the OAL source next employs
      parcellation to break the parcel into sub-parcels the same as for
      the above network layer procedures. This includes re-setting the
      Index, S and Parcel Payload Length fields in each sub-parcel
      the same as specified in <xref target="xmit-subparcels"/>.</t>
      
      <t>The OAL source next assigns a different monotonically-incrementing
      adaptation layer Identification value for each sub-parcel of the same
      Parcel ID then performs adaptation layer encapsulation while writing
      the Parcel ID into the OAL IPv6 Extended Fragment Header. The OAL
      source then performs OAL fragmentation if necessary and finally
      forwards each fragment to the next OAL hop toward the OAL destination.
      (During encapsulation, the OAL source examines the Parcel Payload
      Option S flag to determine the setting for the adaptation layer
      fragment header S flag according to the same rules specified in
      <xref target="xmit-subparcels"/>.)</t>

      <t>When the sub-parcels arrive at the OAL destination, it retains
      them along with their Parcel IDs and Identifications for a short
      time to support reunification with peer sub-parcels of the
      same original (sub-)parcel identified by the 4-tuple information
      corresponding to the OAL source. This reunification entails the
      concatenation of PIBs included in sub-parcels with the same Parcel
      ID and with Identification values within (modulo 64) of one
      another to create a larger sub-parcel possibly even as large
      as the entire original parcel. The OAL destination concatenates
      the segments for each sub-parcel in ascending Identification
      value order, while ensuring that any sub-parcel with TCP control
      bits set appears as the first concatenated element in a reunified
      larger parcel and any sub-parcel with S flag set to 0 appears as
      the final concatenation. The OAL destination then sets S to 0 in
      the reunified (sub-)parcel if and only if one of its constituent
      elements also had S set to 0; otherwise, it sets S to 1.</t>

      <t>The OAL destination then appends a common {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header
      plus extensions to each reunified sub-parcel while resetting Index,
      S and Parcel Payload Length in the corresponding header fields
      of each. For TCP, if any sub-parcel has TCP control bits set the
      OAL destination regards it as sub-parcel(0) and uses its TCP header
      as the header of the reunified (sub-)parcel with the TCP options
      including the union of the TCP options of all reunified sub-parcels.
      The OAL destination then resets the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header checksum.
      If the OAL destination is also the final destination, it then
      delivers the sub-parcels to the network layer which processes
      them according to the 5-tuple information supplied by the original
      source. If the OAL destination is not the final destination, it
      instead forwards each sub-parcel toward the final destination
      the same as for an ordinary IPv6 packet.</t>

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

      <t>Note: OMNI interface parcellation and reunification is an OAL
      process based on the adaptation layer 4-tuple and not the network
      layer 5-tuple.  This is true even if the OAL has visibility into
      network layer information since some sub-parcels of the same
      original parcel may be forwarded over different network paths.</t>

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

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

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

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

      <t>The final destination can then present the concatenated
      parcel contents to the transport layer with segments arranged
      in the same order in which they were originally transmitted.
      The Index field and/or Identification includes an ordinal
      value that preserves ordering since each sub-parcel or individual
      IPv6 packet contains an integral number of whole transport layer
      protocol segments.</t>

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="probe" title="Parcel Probing">
      <t>The original source can send parcels without risk of causing
      harm or triggering alerts even with no prior coordination with
      the final destination. Unless the source has operational
      assurance that all nodes in the networked path up to and
      including the final destination will correctly process Parcel
      options, however, this approach may lead to systematic parcel
      loss resulting in a black hole.</t>

      <t>The original source should therefore send initial probes
      into the forward path using either ordinary IPv6 packets or
      expendable parcels. The source should thereafter occasionally
      send additional probes to determine whether path characteristics
      have changed and/or to detect black hole conditions.</t>

      <t>The original source prepares a packet/parcel with a Parcel
      Probe HBH Option containing the parameters shown in
      <xref target="parcel-probe"/>:
      <figure anchor="parcel-probe" title="Parcel Probe HBH Option">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  | Opt Data Len  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Check     |  P-Limit  |D|O|  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Identification (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The packet/parcel can be either a purpose-built probe or part
      of an existing transport protocol session, but it should cause
      the destination to return a responsive {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 packet
      with authenticating credentials and with a Parcel Probe Reply
      Option - see below.</t>

      <t>The source sets the IPv6 probe Hop Limit to a sufficiently
      large value to allow the probe to traverse the path. The source
      then sets the IPv6 Payload Length the same as for an ordinary
      packet/parcel. The source next sets Option Type "rest" to '00010'
      but with "action" set to '00' and "change" set to '1' (i.e.,
      as Hex Value 0x22). (This Option Type setting distinguishes
      the Parcel Probe from the other Parcel options.) The source
      then sets "Opt Data Len" to 12, and sets Check to the same
      value as Hop Limit. The source should include only a single
      Parcel Probe HBH Option; if multiple are included, the first
      is processed and all others ignored.</t>

      <t>Next, the source sets Parcel Limit (i.e., "P-Limit") to 0,
      sets Residual Path MTU to the 16-bit value 'ffff' and sets
      Parcel Path MTU to the 32-bit MTU of the outgoing
      (parcel-capable) interface for the probe.</t>

      <t>The source then sets D to 1 if the first hop link would
      benefit from the new DTN link model; otherwise sets D to 0.
      Any intermediate system in the path resets D to 1 if the
      new DTN link model is advised for the next hop link. The
      source can then use the returned D value to determine whether
      or not to include end-to-end link integrity checks.</t>

      <t>The source next sets O to 1 if it intends for the probe
      to traverse any OMNI links in the path using jumbo-in-jumbo
      encapsulation where large segment sizes are possible. If
      the source instead requires assured delivery for smaller
      segments, it sets O to 0 to cause any OMNI links in the
      path to engage encapsulation and IP fragmentation with
      segment size limited to 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>The source finally sends the parcel/packet containing the
      probe. Each node in the path that observes this specification
      (including IPv6 routers and the final destination itself)
      then examines and processes the parcel probe as follows:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>If Check contains the same value as the IPv6 header Hop
        Limit, then set Parcel Path MTU to the minimum of its current
        value, the previous hop link MTU, and the node's own receive buffer
        size (but no smaller than the IPv6 minimum MTU <xref target=
        "RFC8200"/>). Next increment Parcel Limit ("P-Limit") by 1
        (up to a maximum value of 63). Then (for routers) forward
        the probe to the next hop while decrementing Hop Limit by
        1 and setting Check to the new Hop Limit value.</t>

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

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

      <t><figure anchor="parcel-mtu" title="Parcel Probe Reply Destination Option">
      <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Reserved   |  P-Limit  |D|O|  Residual Path MTU (16 bits)  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Parcel Path MTU (32 bits)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Identification (32 bits)                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>When the destination includes a Parcel Probe Reply Destination
      Option, it sets Option Type "rest" to '00010', "action" to '00'
      and "change" to '0' (i.e., as Hex Value 0x02) then sets Opt Data
      Len to 12. The destination then sets Parcel Path MTU, Residual
      Path MTU, Parcel Limit, Reserved, D, O and Identification to the
      values included in the probe, i.e., after its own local probe
      processing as discussed above. The destination then includes
      any additional identifying parameters (such as authentication
      codes) in the IPv6 packet and returns the packet to the source
      while discarding the probe. The destination should include only
      a single Parcel Probe Reply Destination Option; if multiple are
      included, the first is processed and all others ignored.</t>

      <t>The original source can therefore send parcel probes in the
      same packets used to carry real data. The probes will transit
      all routers on the forward path possibly extending all the way
      to the destination. If the source does not receive a probe reply,
      it is likely that the path or the final destination does not
      recognize and correctly process Parcel options. If the source
      receives a probe reply, it authenticates the message and matches
      the Identification value with one of its previous probes. If
      a match is confirmed, then the Parcel Probe Reply Option will
      contain all information necessary for the source to use in
      its future parcel/AJ transmissions to this destination. </t>

      <t>In particular, the Parcel Path MTU determines the
      largest-size parcel/AJ segment that can transit the path
      up to a point that parcellation or packetization would be
      necessary. If the O flag is clear, then the maximum-sized
      segment that can traverse an encapsulating link in the path
      without further probing is limited to 65535 octets. If the
      O flag is set, still larger segment sizes may be possible.</t>

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

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

     <t>After the initial path probing, any parcels/AJS may include
     a Parcel Probe HBH option to determine whether a path change
     resulting in a packet size-based black hole may have occurred.
     This allows for inline probing with real protocol data and
     with less dependence on transmission of explicit probe data.</t>

     <t>When the source includes a Parcel Probe as a HBH option, it
     can regard the receipt of an authentic Parcel Probe Reply as
     evidence that the probe transited the entire forward path to
     the destination and that the destination observes all aspects
     of this specification. If the source receives no probe reply,
     or if it only needs to determine whether the destination accepts
     parcels without also probing the path, the source can include
     the Parcel Probe option as a Destination option (i.e., instead
     of a HBH option).</t>

     <t>When the source includes a probe as a Destination Option,
     it uses the same Parcel Probe format and encoding as above
     except with 'act' set to '11' (i.e., as Hex Value 0xE2) and
     with all fields in the option body except Identification set
     to 0. If the destination recognizes the option, it returns
     a Parcel Probe Reply Destination Option in an authentic packet
     the same as for the HBH option case, but the zero-valued
     fields other than Identification differentiate this as a
     Destination Option probe instead of a HBH probe. If the
     destination does not recognize the probe, it will instead
     return an ordinary ICMPv6 message to the source. The
     destination should include only a single Parcel Probe Reply
     Destination Option whether in response to a HBH or Destination
     Probe option; if multiple are included, the first is
     processed and all others ignored.</t>
    </section>

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

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

      <t>The router next copies as much of the leading portion of the
      invoking parcel/AJ as possible (beginning with the IPv6 header)
      into the "packet in error" field without causing the entire
      Parcel/Jumbo Report (beginning with the IPv6 header) to exceed
      the IPv6 Minimum MTU. The router then calculates and sets the
      Checksum field the same as for an ordinary ICMPv6 message then
      sends the prepared Parcel/Jumbo Report to the original source
      of the probe.</t>

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

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

      <t>When the source employs the Parcel Payload Destination
      Option to form an AJ it sets Opt Data Len to 4 the same as
      for parcels but sets Segment Length, Nsegs and S to 0. The
      source next replaces the Index field with AJ-specific
      parameters as shown in <xref target="jumbo-probe"/>:

      <figure anchor="jumbo-probe"
              title="Parcel Payload Destination Option for Advanced Jumbos">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Segment Length         |   Nsegs   |Res| Digest|F|P|S|U|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ]]></artwork></figure></t>

      <t>The source then sets "Digest" to one of the
      CRC/digest types found in <xref target="adv-jumbo-digest"/>.
      Implementations support the following integrity checking
      algorithms identified by "Digest":

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

      <t>The source then sets "F" to 0 for "Non-FEC" or 1 for
      "IANA FEC" (see below). If F is 1, the source includes
      an "IANA FEC Header" immediately following the {TCP,UDP}
      header (i.e., appearing before the PIB/PB) as shown in
      <xref target="fec-details"/>:

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

      <t>The source sets FEC Scheme according to the appropriate
      registry values found in <xref target="IANA-FEC"/> and includes
      a 16-bit FEC Encoding Instance field (with value set according
      to <xref target="IANA-FEC"/>) only if FEC Scheme is larger than
      127. The source then sets FEC Framework according to <xref
      target="IANA-FEC"/> then sets FEC Length to the length of
      this FEC header (i.e., either 4 or 6 octets) plus the number
      of padding octets to be added by the FEC encoding operation.
      The source then increments the AJ payload length by this value.</t>

      <t>When P is 1, the source next includes an (N+2)-octet AJ PIB
      formatted as shown in <xref target="acb"/> with the first N
      octets including the CRC/Digest according to the appropriate
      length given in <xref target="adv-jumbo-digest"/> and the
      final 2 octets including the Internet Checksum:

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

      <t>When the source includes a Parcel Payload HBH Option, it
      then sets Parcel Payload Length to the entire AJ payload
      length and optionally sets Integrity Limit to the length
      of the leading portion of the AJ to be covered by hop-by-hop
      FCS integrity checks. The source next forms the {TCP/UDP}/IPv6
      AJ the same as for parcels as shown in <xref target="struct"/>
      except that the PIB is followed by only a single segment
      corresponding to Index 0. Unlike parcels, the AJ PIB
      CRC/Digest field can also be larger than 8 octets according
      to the length of the selected Digest. UDP AJs set the UDP
      Length field the same as specified for UDP parcels, and
      include a trailing UDP Option Length field if U is set
      to 1.</t>

      <t>The source then includes a CRC/Digest in the AJ PIB for CRC32,
      CRC64, MD5 <xref target="RFC1321"/>, SHA1 <xref target="RFC3174"/>
      or the advanced US Secure Hash Algorithms <xref target="RFC6234"/>
      according the to AJ Digest field value. (An AJ Digest value is
      also reserved by IANA as a non-functional placeholder for a nominal
      CRC128J algorithm, which may be specified in future documents;
      see: <xref target="crc128j"/>.)</t>

      <t>The source next calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum based on
      the same pseudo header as for an ordinary parcel (see: <xref
      target="pseudo"/>). When P=1, the source calculates the header
      checksum only and writes the value into the {TCP,UDP} header
      checksum field the same as specified for parcels. For all AJ
      Digest values other than 0, the source then calculates the
      checksum of the segment payload, writes the value into the
      segment Checksum header, then calculates the CRC/digest over
      the length of the (single) segment beginning with the Checksum
      field and writes the value into the AJ PIB Digest field. The
      source then performs FEC encoding if necessary, resets the
      Payload Length to include the additional length introduced
      by the FEC algorithm, then sends the AJ via the next hop
      link toward the final destination.</t>

      <t>At each forwarding hop, if decrementing would cause the
      Hop Limit to become 0 the router performs packetization to
      convert the AJ into a packet the same as specified for parcels
      (see: <xref target="xmit-singleton"/>) and forwards the packet
      to the next hop. Otherwise, the router decrements Hop Limit
      (and Check when present) by 1 and forwards the intact AJ
      to the next hop.</t>

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

    <section anchor="jij" title="OMNI Interface Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
      <t>OMNI interfaces set an unlimited MTU and 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.
      When an OMNI interface ingress receives an IPv6 packet or an
      AJ/parcel with a Parcel Probe HBH option, it examines the O
      flag. If O is set to 0, the OMNI ingress sets Parcel Path MTU
      to the minimum of its current value and 65535. The OMNI ingress
      then updates Check and forwards the packet to the OMNI egress
      using OMNI encapsulation and IP fragmentation if necessary.</t>

      <t>To determine whether the path supports parcel/AJ segments
      that exceed 65535 octets, the original source can prepare a
      probe with a Parcel Probe HBH option with O set to 1. For
      each such probe, the OMNI link ingress inserts OMNI and L2
      encapsulations per <xref target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>
      then performs "jumbo-in-jumbo" encapsulation by copying the
      (L3) Parcel Probe HBH Option extension header from the
      original probe into the L2 headers as shown in <xref
      target="jij-struct"/>.</t>

      <t>The OMNI link ingress then calculates the UDP checksum
      over the entire length of the encapsulated probe (as the
      UDP payload) and writes the value into the L2 UDP checksum
      field. Each L2 forwarding hop in the path to the next OAL
      intermediate node will then process the probe exactly as
      specified in <xref target="probe"/>, where each parcel/AJ
      capable hop adjusts the Check, Parcel Path MTU and
      Parcel Limit fields then re-calculates/re-sets the L2 UDP
      checksum.</t>

      <t><figure anchor="jij-struct" title="Jumbo-in-Jumbo Encapsulation">
          <artwork><![CDATA[
     Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel Probe            Jumbo-in-Jumbo Parcel
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~   ~         L2 IPv6 Hdr          ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~        L2 UDP header         ~   ~        L2 UDP header         ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       L2 Parcel Probe        ~   ~      L2 Parcel Payload       ~   
   |         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 Payload       ~
   |         HBH Option           |   |         HBH Option           |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~   ~     {TCP,UDP} header and     ~
   ~          packet body         ~   ~        parcel/AJ body        ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
]]></artwork></figure></t>
 
      <t>When each successive OAL intermediate node receives the parcel
      probe, it propagates the Parcel Probe HBH Option 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 Check.
      If Check does not match the IPv6 Hop Limit, the OAL destination
      drops the probe and returns a negative Jumbo Report to the OAL source,
      which then returns a negative Jumbo Report to the original source.
      Otherwise, the OAL destination removes the L2 and OAL headers while
      copying the L2 probe parameters into the L3 Parcel Probe Option
      (with the L2 encapsulation header lengths subtracted from the
      Parcel Path MTU).</t>

      <t>The OAL destination then forwards the probe to the next hop
      toward the final destination from where it may transit multiple
      additional parcel capable OMNI and non-OMNI links. 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.</t>

      <t>When the OMNI link ingress receives an AJ larger than 65535
      octets, it performs "jumbo-in-jumbo encapsulation" by leaving
      the L3 parcel/AJ headers intact, then appending OMNI adaptation
      layer IPv6 encapsulations plus L2 encapsulations that include a
      Parcel Payload HBH 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 Parcel Payload Length field to the length of
      the L2 extension headers (including the L2 UDP header, if present)
      plus the lengths of the OMNI IPv6 encapsulation header and the L3
      packet (including all L3 headers). The OMNI link ingress sets all
      other OMNI and L2 encapsulation header fields as specified in <xref
      target="I-D.templin-6man-omni3"/>. The parcel/AJ "jumbo-in-jumbo"
      encapsulation format is shown in <xref target="jij-struct"/>.</t>

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

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

      <t>While a probe/parcel/AJ is traversing an OMNI link, 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.</t>
    </section>

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

      <t>Parcels/AJs include a PIB when there is at least one DTN
      link in the path, or when the path may otherwise not support
      adequate hop-by-hop integrity checks for larger-sized segments.
      For parcels/AJs that include a PIB, the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 header
      includes an integrity check of only the headers while
      the PIB includes integrity checks for each segment. The
      per-segment Checksums/CRCs are set by the source and verified
      by the destination. Note that both checks are important (when
      no other integrity checks are present) since there may be
      instances when errors missed by the CRC are detected by the
      Checksum <xref target="STONE"/>.</t>

      <t>IPv6 parcels can range in length from as small as only the
      {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 headers plus a single segment to as large as
      the headers plus (64 * 65535) octets, while AJs include only
      a single segment that can be as small as a null segment to
      as large as 2**32 octets (minus headers). Due to
      parcellation/packetization in the path, the segment contents
      of a received parcel may arrive in an incomplete and/or
      rearranged order with respect to their original packaging.</t>
 
      <t>IPv6 parcels with P=1 include CRC32/64 integrity checks in
      the PIB. The original source uses either the CRC32C specification
      <xref target="RFC3385"/> or the CRC64E specification <xref target=
      "ECMA-182"/> and encodes the PIB. AJs that set a Digest type
      other than NULL instead include an N-octet CRC or message digest
      calculated per <xref target="RFC1321"/>, <xref target="RFC3174"/>
      or <xref target="RFC6234"/> according to the hash algorithm
      assigned to Type.</t>

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

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

      <t><figure anchor="pseudo"
              title="{TCP,UDP}/IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header Formats">
        <artwork><![CDATA[   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~               IPv6 Source Address (16 octets)                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~             IPv6 Destination Address (16 octets)              ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Parcel Payload Length (4 Octets)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Segment Length          |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>where the following fields appear:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>Source Address is the 16-octet IPv6 source
          address of the prepared parcel/AJ.</t>

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

          <t>Parcel Payload Length is set to the 4-octet field of
          the same name when the Parcel Payload HBH Option is
          included; otherwise, set to the 2-octet IPv6 Payload
          Length.</t>

          <t>Segment Length is the value that appears in the
          final 2 octets of the Parcel Payload Destination
          Option header.</t>

          <t>zero encodes the constant value 0.</t>

          <t>Next Header is the IP protocol number corresponding to the
          transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP or UDP.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers
      a parcel body to the network layer, it presents the values L and
      J along with the J segments in canonical order as a list of
      data buffers. (For AJs, the transport layer instead delivers
      the singleton AJ segment along with the Parcel Payload Length.)
      When the network layer of the source accepts the parcel/AJ body
      from the transport layer protocol entity, it calculates the
      Internet checksum for each segment and writes the value into
      the correct PIB field (or writes the value 0 when UDP
      checksums are disabled).</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>The IANA is instructed to add the following new entries to the
      "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters Registry group:

         <list style="empty">
          <t>- in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options"
          Registry (registration procedure IESG Approval, IETF Review
          or Standards Action) assign the following new entries:<figure
          anchor="parcel-payload-code" title="Destination Options and
          Hop-by-Hop Options"><artwork><![CDATA[   Hex Val  act chg rest    Description                Reference
   -------  --- --- -----   -----------                ---------
     0x02   00   0  00010   Parcel Payload HBH Option  [RFCXXXX]
     0x02   00   0  00010   Parcel Param/Reply DestOpt [RFCXXXX]
     0x22   00   1  00010   Parcel Probe HBH Option    [RFCXXXX]
     0xC2   11   0  00010   Parcel Payload Dest Option [RFCXXXX]
     0xE2   11   1  00010   Parcel Probe Dest Option   [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
        </list>Note that the "rest" value is the same as for the
        existing Jumbo Payload option <xref target="RFC2675"/> but
        the act/chg and resulting Hex Values differentiate.</t>

     <t>The IANA is instructed to add the following new entries to the
      "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters"
      Registry group:

         <list style="empty">
          <t>- in the "ICMPv6 Code Fields" Registry and "Type 2 - Packet
          Too Big" Sub-registry (registration procedure Standards Action
          or IESG Approval) assign the following new Code values:<figure
          anchor="omni-pmtu-code" title="ICMPv6 Code Fields: Type 2 - Packet
          Too Big Values"><artwork><![CDATA[   Code            Name                         Reference
   ---             ----                         ---------
   3 (suggested)   Parcel Report                [RFCXXXX]
   4 (suggested)   Jumbo Report                 [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Finally, the IANA is instructed to create and maintain a new
      registry titled "IPv6 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)" that
      includes an "IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Digest Types" table with the
      initial values given below: <figure anchor="jumbo-type" title=
      "IPv6 Advanced Jumbo Digest Types">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   Value        Jumbo Type                     Reference
   -----        ----------                     ---------
   0            Advanced Jumbo / NULL          [RFCXXXX]
   1            Advanced Jumbo / CRC32C        [RFCXXXX]
   2            Advanced Jumbo / CRC64E        [RFCXXXX]
   3            Advanced Jumbo / MD5           [RFCXXXX]
   4            Advanced Jumbo / SHA1          [RFCXXXX]
   5            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-224       [RFCXXXX]
   6            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-256       [RFCXXXX]
   7            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-384       [RFCXXXX]
   8            Advanced Jumbo / SHA-512       [RFCXXXX]
   9            Advanced Jumbo / CRC128J       [RFCXXXX]
   10-15        Unassigned                     [RFCXXXX]
]]></artwork></figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="secure" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>In the control plane, original sources match the Identification
      (and/or other identifying information) received in Parcel
      Reports with their earlier parcel/AJ transmissions. If the identifying
      information matches, the report is likely authentic. When stronger
      authentication is needed, nodes that send Parcel Reports can
      apply the message authentication services specified for AERO/OMNI.</t>

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

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

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

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

      <t>The Parcel Payload Destination and HBH Options support
      end-to-end authentication since the option contents are not
      permitted to change en route. The Parcel Probe Destination
      and HBH options permit their contents to change en route
      excluding them from end-to-end authentication coverage.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations
      through Boeing internal research and development. The concepts 
      were further motivated through discussions with colleagues.</t>

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

      <t>With the advent of networked storage, big data, streaming media
      and other high data rate uses the early days of Internetworking have
      evolved to accommodate the need for improved performance. The need
      fostered a concerted effort in the industry to pursue performance
      optimizations at all layers that continues in the modern era. All
      who supported and continue to support advances in Internetworking
      performance are acknowledged.</t>

      <t>This work has been presented at working group sessions of the
      Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The following individuals
      are acknowledged for their contributions: Roland Bless, Ron Bonica,
      Scott Burleigh, Madhuri Madhava Badgandi, Brian Carpenter, David
      Dong, Joel Halpern, Mike Heard, Tom Herbert, Bob Hinden, Andy Malis,
      Bill Pohlchuck, Herbie Robinson, Bhargava Raman Sai Prakash, Joe
      Touch and others on the IETF lists who have provided guidance.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <references title="Informative References">

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9268"?>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2"?>

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

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

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9673"?>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      <t>Since TCP/IPv6 parcels only include control bits for the first
      segment ("segment(0)"), nodes must regard all other segments of the
      same parcel as data segments. When a node breaks a TCP/IPv6 parcel
      out into individual packets or sub-parcels, only the first packet or
      sub-parcel contains the original segment(0) and therefore only its
      TCP header retains the control bit settings from the original parcel
      TCP header. If the original TCP header included TCP options such as
      Maximum Segment Size (MSS), Window Scale (WS) and/or Timestamp, the
      node copies those same options into the options section of the new
      TCP header.</t>

      <t>For all other packets/sub-parcels, the note sets all TCP header
      control bits to 0 as data segment(s). Then, if the original parcel
      contained a Timestamp option, the node copies the Timestamp option
      into the options section of the new TCP header. Appendix A of
      <xref target="RFC7323"/> provides implementation guidelines for
      the Timestamp option layout.</t>

      <t>Appendix A of <xref target="RFC7323"/> also discusses Interactions
      with the TCP Urgent Pointer as follows: "if the Urgent Pointer
      points beyond the end of the TCP data in the current segment, then
      the user will remain in urgent mode until the next TCP segment arrives.
      That segment will update the Urgent Pointer to a new offset, and the
      user will never have left urgent mode". In the case of IPv6 parcels,
      however, it will often be the case that the next TCP segment is
      included in the same (sub-)parcel as the segment that contained
      the urgent pointer such that the urgent pointer can be updated
      immediately.</t>

      <t>Finally, if a parcel/AJ contains more than 65535 octets of data
      (i.e., even if spread across multiple segments), then the Urgent
      Pointer can be regarded in the same manner as for jumbograms as
      described in Section 5.2 of <xref target="RFC2675"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="borderline" title="Extreme L Value Implications">
      <t>For each parcel, the transport layer can specify any L value
      between 1 and 65535 octets.</t>

      <t>The transport layer should also specify an L value no larger
      than can accommodate the maximum-sized transport and network layer
      headers that the source will include without causing a single
      segment plus headers to exceed 65535 octets. For example, if the
      source will include a 28 octet TCP header plus a 40 octet IPv6
      header with 24 extension header octets the transport should
      specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24) =
      65443 octets.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <section anchor="legacy" title="Relation to Standard RFC2675 Jumbograms">
       <t>This specification uses a new Parcel Payload HBH Option
       along with a companion Destination Option of the same name
       either instead of or in addition to the <xref target="RFC2675"/>
       Jumbo Payload HBH Option.</t>

       <t>Standard <xref target="RFC2675"/> jumbograms are incompatible
       with UDP options, since they always set the IPv6 Payload Length
       field to 0 and do not otherwise include a UDP options offset.
       Standard jumbograms are further subject to myriad formatting
       rules that require intermediate systems to drop packets
       containing the option that do not full conform to all rules
       and return an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message.</t>

       <t>Standard jumbograms are also always 64KB or larger and
       rely on IPv6 Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) ICMPv6 Packet Too
       Big messages to determine whether the end-to-end path
       supports jumbograms. But the ICMPv6 messages produced
       for Parameter Problem and PMTUD are often unreliable
       (and sometimes even untrustworthy) in nature.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="changes" title="Change Log">
       <t>&lt;&lt; RFC Editor - remove prior to publication &gt;&gt;</t>
       <t>Changes from version -17 to -20:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Clarified the need for end-to-end integrity checking
          and forward error correction when retransmissions may
          be impractical.</t>

          <t>Clarified that the path MTU determines the maximum
          parcel/AJ segment size, which may be smaller than the
          maximum parcel which may contain multiple segments.</t>

          <t>Clarified that OMNI interfaces set an unlimited MTU
          and provide an assured service for segments up to
          65535 octets and a best-effort service for larger segments.</t>

          <t>TCP sequence numbers for each parcel segment are now
          calculated according to their offset from the base TCP
          header sequence number and are not explicitly included
          as ancillary header fields.</t>

         <t>Changed {TCP,UDP} options to IPv6 Destination Options
         and removed defunct text from IANA Considerations.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -16 to -17:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Made Parcel/AJ Destination Options more similar to one
          another to simplify processing and easily distinguish
          parcels from AJs.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -15 to -16:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Closer integration with RFC2675; options codes now share
          the same value as RFC2675.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -14 to -15:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Changed to request a new IPv6 option for Parcel Payload
          instead of overloading the RFC9268 option.</t>

          <t>Parcel Payload Option exists as both a HBH and Destination
          option. When only the DO is present, parcels/AJs follow the
          existing Internet link model. When the HBH is present, the
          new link model is engaged. This allows parcels/AJs to transit
          paths of intermediate nodes that do not recognize the construct.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -13 to -14:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Updated IANA considerations based on IANA early review input.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -12 to -13:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Added new appendix "Relation to Standard RFC2675 Jumbograms".</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -11 to -12:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Tightened specification of Parcel/Jumbo Payload Length.</t>
        </list></t>

       <t>Changes from version -10 to -11:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Added Appendix on "GSO/GRO API".</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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