IP Parcels

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 August 2023.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

IP packets (both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC8200]) contain a single unit of transport layer protocol data which becomes the retransmission unit in case of loss. Transport layer protocols such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC9293] and reliable delivery protocol users of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] (including QUIC [RFC9000], LTP [RFC5326] and others) prepare data units known as "segments", with individual IP packets including only a single segment. This document presents a new construct known as the "IP Parcel" which permits a single packet to carry multiple transport layer protocol segments. This essentially creates a "packet-of-packets" with the full {TCP,UDP}/IP headers appearing only once but with possibly more than one segment.¶

Transport layer protocol entities form parcels by preparing a data buffer (or buffer chain) beginning with an Integrity Block of at most 256 2-octet Checksums followed by their corresponding transport layer protocol segments that can be broken out into individual packets and/or smaller sub-parcels if necessary. All segments except the final one must be equal in length and no larger than 65535 octets (minus headers), while the final segment must not be larger than the others but may be smaller. The transport layer protocol entity then delivers the buffer(s), number of segments and non-final segment size to the network layer which copies the buffer(s) into the body of a parcel then includes a {TCP,UDP} header and an IP header plus extensions that identify this as a parcel and not an ordinary packet.¶

The network layer then forwards each parcel over consecutive parcel-capable links in a path until they arrive at a next hop link that does not support parcels, a parcel-capable link with a size restriction, or an ingress middlebox Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] that spans intermediate Internetworks using adaptation layer encapsulation and fragmentation. In the first case, the original source or next hop router applies packetization to break the parcel into individual IP packets. In the second case, the source/router applies network layer parcellation to form smaller sub-parcels. In the final case, the OMNI interface applies adaptation layer parcellation to form smaller sub-parcels if necessary then applies adaptation layer encapsulation and fragmentation if necessary before forwarding.¶

These adaptation layer sub-parcels may then be reconstituted into one or more larger sub-parcels by an egress middlebox OMNI interface which either delivers them locally or forwards them over additional parcel-capable links in the network path to the final destination. The final destination can then apply network layer reconstitution (or reconstruction) to concatenate elements of the same original parcel into a single unit so as to present the largest possible number of segments to the transport layer in a single system call. Reordering and even loss or damage of individual segments within the network is therefore possible, but what matters is that the parcels delivered to the final destination's transport layer should be the largest practical size for best performance and that loss or receipt of individual segments (and not parcel size) determines the retransmission unit.¶

The following sections discuss rationale for creating and shipping IP parcels as well as the actual protocol constructs and procedures involved. IP parcels provide an essential building block for improved performance, efficiency and integrity while encouraging larger Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs) in the Internet. It is further expected that the parcel concept will inspire future innovation in applications, transport protocols, operating systems, network equipment and data links while advancing the worldwide Internetworking architecture.¶

2. Terminology

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

In this same spirit, an "IP parcel" is simply a collection of at most 256 transport layer protocol segments wrapped in an efficient package for transmission and delivery (i.e., a "packet-of-packets") while a "singleton IP parcel" is simply a parcel that contains a single segment. IP parcels are distinguished from ordinary packets through the constructs specified in this document.¶

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

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

Where the document refers to checksum calculations, it means the standard Internet checksum unless otherwise specified. The same as for TCP [RFC9293], UDP [RFC0768] and IPv4 [RFC0791], the standard Internet checksum is defined as (sic) "the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of all (pseudo-)headers plus data, padded with zero octets at the end (if necessary) to make a multiple of two octets". A notional Internet checksum algorithm can be found in [RFC1071], while practical implementations require special attention to byte ordering "endianness" to ensure interoperability between diverse architectures.¶

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 simply known as "the layer below L3 but above L2" and does not assign a layer number itself. A network interface is a node's attachment to a link (via L2), and an OMNI interface is therefore a node's attachment to an OMNI link (via the adaptation layer).¶

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

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 "3-tuple" refers to a network layer parcel entity identifier that includes the adaptation layer (source address, destination address, Parcel ID).¶

The term "Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)" is widely understood in Internetworking terminology to mean the largest packet size that can traverse a single link ("link MTU") or an entire path ("path MTU") without requiring network layer IP fragmentation. If the MTU value returned during parcel path qualification is larger than 65535 (plus the length of the parcel headers), it determines the maximum parcel size that can traverse the link/path without requiring a router to perform packetization/parcellation. Otherwise, the MTU determines the "Maximum Segment Size (MSS)" for the leading portion of the path up to a router that cannot forward the parcel further. (Note that this size may be larger than the MSS that can traverse the remainder of the path to the final destination.)¶

The terms "packetization" and "reconstruction" refer to a network layer process in which the original source or a router on the path breaks a parcel out into individual IP packets that can transit the remainder of the path without loss due to a size restriction. These packets are then reconstructed by the final destination into a parcel before delivery to the transport layer. In current practice, packetization/reconstruction can be considered to be one and the same as Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO).¶

The terms "parcellation" and "reconstitution" 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 reconstituted into larger (sub-)parcels before delivery to the transport layer. As a network layer process, the sub-parcels resulting from parcellation may only be reconstituted at the final destination. As an adaptation layer process, the resulting sub-parcels may be first reconstituted at an adaptation layer egress node then further reconstituted by the network layer of the final destination.¶

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

Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO) [I-D.templin-intarea-aero] and the Overlay Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] provide an architectural framework for transmission of IP parcels over existing Internetworks. AERO/OMNI will provide an operational environment for IP parcels beginning from the earliest deployment phases and extending indefinitely to accommodate continuous future growth. As more and more parcel-capable links are deployed (e.g., in data centers, edge networks, space-domain, and other high data rate services) AERO/OMNI will continue to provide an essential service for true IP parcel Internetworking.¶

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

3. Background and Motivation

Studies have shown that applications can improve their performance by sending and receiving larger packets due to reduced numbers of system calls and interrupts as well as larger atomic data copies between kernel and user space. Larger packets also result in reduced numbers of network device interrupts and better network utilization (e.g., due to header overhead reduction) in comparison with smaller packets.¶

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

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

TCP also benefits from larger packet sizes and efforts have investigated TCP performance using jumbograms internally with changes to the linux GSO/GRO facilities [BIG-TCP]. The approach proposed to use the Jumbo Payload option internally and to allow GSO/GRO to use buffer sizes larger than 65535 octets, but with the understanding that links that support jumbograms natively are not yet widely available. Hence, IP parcels provide a packaging that can be considered in the near term under current deployment limitations.¶

A limiting consideration for sending large packets is that they are often lost at links with MTU restrictions, and the resulting Packet Too Big (PTB) message [RFC1191][RFC8201] may be lost somewhere in the return path to the original source. This "Path MTU black hole" condition can degrade performance unless robust path probing techniques are used, however the best case performance always occurs when loss of packets due to size restrictions is minimized.¶

These considerations therefore motivate a design where transport protocols can employ segment sizes as large as 65535 octets (minus headers), while parcels that carry multiple segments may themselves be significantly larger. Parcels therefore support improvements in performance, integrity and efficiency for the original source, final destination and networked path as a whole. This is true even if the network and lower layers need to apply packetization/reconstruction, parcellation/reconstitution and/or fragmentation/reassembly.¶

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

4. IP Parcel Formation

A transport protocol entity identified by its 5-tuple forms a parcel body when it prepares a data buffer (or buffer chain) containing an Integrity Block of at most 256 2-octet Checksums followed by their corresponding transport layer protocol segments, with each TCP non-first segment preceded by a 4-octet Sequence Number header. All non-final segments MUST be equal in length while the final segment MUST NOT be larger and MAY be smaller.¶

The non-final segment size L should be no larger than the minimum of 65535 octets and the path MTU, minus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header (plus options), minus the length of the IP header (plus options/extensions), minus 2 octets for the per-segment Checksum. The transport layer protocol entity then presents the buffer(s) and size L to the network layer, noting that the combined buffer length(s) may exceed 65535 octets if there are sufficient segments of a large enough size. (See: Appendix B for further discussion.)¶

If the next hop link is not parcel capable, the network layer performs packetization to configure each segment as an individual IP packet as discussed in Section 5.1. Otherwise, the network layer forms a parcel by appending a single full {TCP,UDP} header (plus options) and a single full IP header (plus options/extensions). The network layer finally includes a specially-formatted "Jumbo Payload" option as an extension to the IP header of each parcel prior to transmission over a network interface.¶

For IPv4, the Jumbo Payload option is included as an IPv4 header option with format derived from [RFC2675] except that the network layer sets Option Type to '00001011' and Option Data Len to '00010000' (noting that the length also distinguishes this type from its obsoleted use as the "IPv4 Probe MTU" option [RFC1063]). The option is formed as shown in Figure 1:¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |      Code     |     Check     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Identification                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |P|S| Reserved  |                Path MTU (PMTU)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The network layer sets Code to 255 and sets Check to the same value that will appear in the TTL of the outgoing IPv4 header. The network layer next sets Nsegs to a value J between 0 and 255 and sets Jumbo Payload Length to a 3-octet value M that encodes the length of the IPv4 header plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of the Integrity Block plus all concatenated segments. Next, the network layer sets Identification as discussed in Section 5, sets the "(P)robe Path MTU" flag to '1' for probes or '0' for non-probes and sets the "More (S)ub-parcels" flag to '1' for non-final sub-parcels or '0' for the final (sub-)parcel. The network layer finally sets the IPv4 header DF bit to 1 and Total Length field to the non-final segment size L.¶

For IPv6, the Jumbo Payload option is included as an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option formatted the same as for IPv4 above, but with Option Type set to '11001110', Option Data Len set to '00001100' and with the Code/Check fields omitted. The option is formed as shown in Figure 2:¶

                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Identification                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |P|S| Reserved  |                Path MTU (PMTU)                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The network layer sets Nsegs to a 1-octet value J between 0 and 255 and sets the Jumbo Payload Length field to a 3-octet value M that encodes the lengths of all IPv6 extension headers present plus the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the combined length of the Integrity Block plus all concatenated segments. Next, the network layer sets Identification as discussed in Section 5, sets the P flag to '1' for probes or '0' for non-probes and sets the S flag to '1' for non-final sub-parcels or '0' for the final (sub-)parcel. The network layer finally sets the IPv6 header Payload Length field to L.¶

Following transport and network layer processing, {TCP,UDP}/IP parcels therefore have the structures shown in Figure 3:¶

        TCP/IP Parcel Structure            UDP/IP Parcel Structure
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |IP Hdr plus options/extensions|   |IP Hdr plus options/extensions|
   ~ {Total, Payload} Length = L  ~   ~ {Total, Payload} Length = L  ~
   | Nsegs = J; Jumbo Length = M  |   | Nsegs = J; Jumbo Length = M  |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~   TCP header (plus options)  ~   ~         UDP header           ~
   | (Includes Sequence Number 0) |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   |                              |   |                              |
   ~       Integrity Block        ~   ~       Integrity Block        ~
   |                              |   |                              |
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~                              ~   ~                              ~
   ~    Segment 0 (L-4 octets)    ~   ~     Segment 0 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number 1 followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment 1 (L octets)   ~   ~     Segment 1 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number 2 followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment 2 (L octets)   ~   ~     Segment 2 (L octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   ~             ...              ~   ~             ...              ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+
   ~  Sequence Number J followed  ~   ~                              ~
   ~    by Segment J (K octets)   ~   ~     Segment J (K octets)     ~
   +------------------------------+   +------------------------------+

where the total number of segments is (J + 1), L is the length of each non-final segment which MUST be larger than 1 and no larger than 65535 octets, and K is the length of the final segment which MUST be no larger than L.¶

The {TCP,UDP} header is then immediately followed by an Integrity Block containing (J + 1) 2-octet Checksums concatenated in numerical order as shown in Figure 4:¶

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Checksum (0)          |         Checksum (1)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Checksum (2)          |            ...                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            ...                ~
   ~            ...                             ...                ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Checksum (J-1)         |         Checksum (J)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Integrity Block is then followed by (J + 1) transport layer segments. For TCP, the TCP header Sequence Number field encodes a 4-octet starting sequence number for the first segment only, while each additional segment is preceded by its own 4-octet Sequence Number field. For this reason, the length of the first segment is only (L-4) octets since the 4-octet TCP header Sequence Number field applies to that segment. (All non-first TCP segments instead begin with their own Sequence Number headers, with the 4-octet length included in L and K.)¶

The Jumbo Payload option Nsegs value unambiguously determines the number of 2-octet Checksums present in the Integrity Block and (together with the IP {Total, Payload} length and Jumbo Payload Length) also determines the number of parcel data segments present. Nodes that process and forward IP parcels therefore observe the following requirements:¶

• if the Jumbo Payload Length indicates insufficient space for the full Integrity Block plus at least one data segment of length K, the receiver discards the parcel.¶
• if the length of the payload following the Integrity Block is (J * L) or less, the receiver processes all initial Checksums along with their corresponding segments up to the end of the payload and ignores any remaining Checksums.¶
• if the length of the payload following the Integrity Block is greater than ((J + 1) * L) the receiver processes all Checksums with their corresponding segments and ignores any remaining payload beyond the end of the final segment.¶

Note: Per-segment Checksums appear in a contiguous Integrity Block immediately following the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers instead of inline with the parcel segments to greatly increase the probability that they will appear in the contiguous head of a kernel receive buffer even if the parcel was subject to OMNI interface IPv6 fragmentation. This condition may not always hold if the IPv6 fragments also incur IPv4 encapsulation and fragmentation over paths that traverse fast IPv4 links with small MTUs. Even in that case, however, only the fragmented Integrity Block (i.e., and not the entire parcel) may need to be pulled into the contiguous head of a kernel receive buffer.¶

Note: For IPv4 parcels, the first 2 octets of the Jumbo Payload option include Code and Check fields in case a router on the path overwrites the values in a wayward attempt to implement [RFC1063]. IPv4 parcel recipients should therefore regard an incorrect Code or Check value as evidence that the field was either accidentally or intentionally corrupted by a previous hop node.¶

5. Transmission of IP Parcels

During {TCP,UDP} parcel assembly, the network layer of the source fully populates all IP header fields including the source address, destination address and Jumbo Payload option as discussed above. The source also sets IP {Total, Payload} Length to a value between 2 and 255 to distinguish the parcel from an ordinary jumbogram or "Jumbo Probe" (see: Section 8).¶

The network layer of the source also maintains a randomly-initialized 32-bit cached Identification value for each destination. For each parcel transmission, the source sets the Jumbo Payload Identification field to the current cached value for this destination then increments the cached value by 1 (modulo 2**32). The source can subsequently reset each cached Identification to a new random value at any time, e.g., to maintain an unpredictable profile.¶

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

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

Each parcel serves as an implicit probe that tests the forward path's ability to pass parcels. Each parcel header also includes a 24-bit "Path MTU (PMTU)" field into which the source writes the minimum of the next hop link MTU and (2**24 - 1) and each router in the path rewrites PMTU in a similar fashion as for [RFC1063][I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option]. In particular, each router compares the parcel PMTU value with the next hop link MTU in the parcel path and MUST (re)set PMTU to the minimum value. Note that the fact that the parcel traversed a previous hop link should provide acceptable evidence of forward progress since parcel path MTU determination is unidirectional in the forward path only. However, nodes can also include the previous hop link MTU in their minimum PMTU calculations in case the link may have an ingress size restriction (such as a receive buffer limitation). Each parcel also includes one or more transport layer segments corresponding to the 5-tuple for the flow, which may also include {TCP,UDP} segment size probes used for packetization layer path MTU discovery [RFC4821][RFC8899]. (See: Section 6 for further details on parcel path probing.)¶

When a router receives an IPv4 parcel it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IPv4 header TTL; if either value differs, the router drops the parcel and returns a negative Parcel Reply (see Section 6). For all other IP parcels, the router next compares the value L with the next hop link MTU. If the next hop link MTU is too small to pass either a singleton parcel or an individual IP packet with a single segment of length L the router discards the parcel and returns a positive Parcel Reply with MTU set to the next hop link MTU. Otherwise, for IPv4 parcels if the next hop link is parcel capable the router MUST reset Check to the same value that would appear in the TTL of the outgoing IPv4 header for forwarding the parcel to the next hop.¶

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

6. Parcel Path Probing

All parcels also serve as implicit probes and may cause either a router in the path or the final destination to return an ordinary ICMP error [RFC0792][RFC4443] and/or Packet Too Big (PTB) message [RFC1191] [RFC8201] concerning the parcel. A router in the path or the final destination may also return a "Parcel Reply" (subject to rate limiting per [RFC4443]).¶

To determine whether parcels can transit at least an initial portion of the forward path toward the final destination, the original source can also send IP parcels with the Jumbo Payload option P flag set to '1' as an explicit "Parcel Probe". The probe will cause the final destination or a router on the path to return a Parcel Reply, while the parcel itself can continue to make forward progress. (The original source should be conservative in sending explicit Parcel Probes to avoid Parcel Reply loss due to rate limiting.)¶

A Parcel Probe can be included either in an ordinary data parcel or a {TCP,UDP}/IP parcel with destination port set to '9' (discard) [RFC0863]. The probe will still contain a valid {TCP,UDP} parcel header Checksum that any intermediate hops as well as the final destination can use to detect mis-delivery, while the final destination will process any parcel data in probes with correct Checksums.¶

If the original source receives a positive Parcel Reply, it marks the path as "parcels supported" and ignores any ordinary ICMP and/or PTB messages concerning the probe. If the original source instead receives a negative Parcel Reply or no reply, it marks the path as "parcels not supported" and may regard any ordinary ICMP and/or PTB messages concerning the probe (or its contents) as indications of a possible path limitation.¶

The original source can therefore send Parcel Probes in the same IP parcels used to carry real data. The probes will traverse parcel-capable links joined by routers on the forward path possibly extending all the way to the destination. If the original source receives a positive Parcel Reply, it can continue using IP parcels (while also adjusting its current segment size if necessary).¶

The original source sends Parcel Probes unidirectionally in the forward path toward the final destination to elicit a Parcel Reply, since it will often be the case that IP parcels are supported only in the forward path and not in the return path. Parcel Probes may be dropped in the forward path by any node that does not recognize IP parcels, but Parcel Replys must be packaged to avoid return path filtering. For this reason, the Jumbo Payload options included in Parcel Probes are always packaged as IPv4 header options or IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options while Parcel Replys are returned as UDP/IP encapsulated ICMPv6 PTB messages with a "Parcel Reply" Code value (see: [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]).¶

Original sources send ordinary parcels or discard parcels as explicit Parcel Probes by setting the Jumbo Payload P flag to '1' and PMTU to the minimum of the next hop link MTU and (2**24 - 1). The source then sets Nsegs, Jumbo Payload Length, and {Total, Payload} Length, then calculates the header and per-segment checksums the same as for an ordinary parcel. The source finally sends the Parcel Probe via the outbound IP interface.¶

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

According to [RFC7126], IPv4 middleboxes (i.e., routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that do not observe this specification should drop IPv4 packets that contain option type '00001011' ("IPv4 Probe MTU") but some might instead either attempt to implement [RFC1063] or ignore the option altogether. IPv4 middleboxes that observe this specification instead MUST process the option as an implicit or explicit Parcel Probe as specified below.¶

According to [RFC2675], IPv6 middleboxes (i.e., routers, security gateways, firewalls, etc.) that recognize the IPv6 Jumbo Payload option but do not observe this specification should return an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message (and presumably also drop the packet) due to validation rules for ordinary jumbograms since the parcel includes a non-zero IP {Total, Payload} Length. IPv6 middleboxes that observe this specification instead MUST process the option as an implicit or explicit Parcel Probe as specified below.¶

When a router that observes this specification receives an IPv4 Parcel Probe it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IP header TTL; if either value differs, the router drops the probe and returns a negative Parcel Reply (see below). For all other IP Parcel Probes, if the next hop link is non-parcel-capable the router compares PMTU with the next hop link MTU and returns a positive Parcel Reply (see below) with MTU set to the minimum value. If the next hop link configures a sufficiently large MTU, the router then applies packetization to convert the probe into individual IP packet(s) and forwards each packet to the next hop; otherwise, it drops the probe.¶

If the next hop link both supports parcels and configures an MTU that is large enough to pass the probe, the router instead compares the probe PMTU with the next hop link MTU and MUST (re)set PMTU to the minimum value then forward the probe to the next hop (and for IPv4 first reset Check to the same value that will appear in the outgoing IPv4 TTL). If the next hop link supports parcels but configures an MTU that is too small to pass the probe, the router resets PMTU (and Check if necessary) then applies parcellation to break the probe into multiple smaller sub-parcels that can traverse the link while setting the P flag to '1' only for the first sub-parcel. If the next hop link supports parcels but configures an MTU that is too small to pass a singleton sub-parcel of the probe, the router instead drops the probe and returns a positive Parcel Reply with MTU set to the next hop link MTU.¶

The final destination may therefore receive one or more individual IP packets or intact Parcel Probes. If the final destination receives individual IP packets, it performs any necessary integrity checks, applies GRO if possible then delivers the (reconstructed) buffer contents to the transport layer which will return one or more segment size probe response(s) if necessary. If the final destination receives an IPv4 Parcel Probe, it first compares Code with 255 and Check with the IPv4 header TTL; if either value differs, the final destination drops the probe and returns a negative Parcel Reply. Otherwise, the final destination returns a positive Parcel Reply and delivers the (reconstituted) buffer contents to the transport layer the same as for an ordinary IP parcel.¶

When a router or final destination returns a Parcel Reply, it prepares an ICMPv6 PTB message [RFC4443] with Code set to "Parcel Reply" (see: [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]) and with MTU set to either the minimum MTU value for a positive reply or to '0' for a negative reply. The node then writes its own IP address as the Parcel Reply source and writes the source of the Parcel Probe as the Parcel Reply destination (for IPv4 Parcel Probes, the node writes the Parcel Reply address as an IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address [RFC4291]). The node next copies as much of the leading portion of the probe/parcel (beginning with the IP header) as possible into the "packet in error" field without causing the entire Parcel Reply (beginning with the IPv6 header) to exceed 512 octets in length, then calculates the ICMPv6 Checksum. Since IPv6 packets cannot traverse IPv4 paths, and since middleboxes often filter ICMPv6 messages as they traverse IPv6 paths, the node next wraps the Parcel Reply in UDP/IP headers of the correct IP version with the IP source and destination addresses copied from the Parcel Reply and with UDP port numbers set to the OMNI UDP port number [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]. In the process, the node either calculates or omits the UDP Checksum as appropriate and (for IPv4) clears the DF bit. The node finally sends the prepared Parcel Reply to the original source of the probe.¶

After sending a Parcel Probe (or an ordinary parcel) the original source may therefore receive a UDP/IP encapsulated Parcel Reply (see above) and/or one or more transport layer protocol probe replies. If the source receives a Parcel Reply, it verifies the checksum and matches the enclosed PTB message with an original probe/parcel by examining the Identification echoed in the ICMPv6 "packet in error" containing the leading portion of the probe. If the Identification does not match, the source discards the Parcel Reply; otherwise, it continues to process. If the Parcel Reply MTU is '0', the source marks the path as "parcels not supported"; otherwise, it marks the path as "parcels supported" and also records the MTU value as the parcel path MTU (i.e., the portion of the path up to and including the node that returned the Parcel Reply). If the MTU value is 65535 or larger, the MTU determines the largest whole parcel size that can traverse the path without packetization/parcellation while using any segment size up to and including the maximum. If the MTU value is smaller, the value represents both the largest whole parcel size and a maximum segment size limitation. In both cases, the maximum parcel size that can traverse the initial portion of the path may be larger than the maximum segment size that can continue to traverse the remaining path to the final destination, which can only be determined through transport layer protocol probes (i.e., either as individual probe packets or as payloads of the Parcel Probes).¶

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

7. Integrity

The {TCP,UDP}/IP header plus each segment of a (multi-segment) IP parcel includes its own integrity check. This means that IP parcels can support stronger and more discrete integrity checks for the same amount of transport layer protocol data compared to an individual IP packet or jumbogram. The {TCP/UDP} Checksum header integrity check can be verified at each hop to ensure that parcels with errored headers are detected. The per-segment Integrity Block Checksums are set by the source and verified by the final destination, noting that TCP parcels must honor the sequence number discipline discussed in Section 4.1.¶

IP parcels can range in length from as small as only the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers plus a single Integrity Block Checksum with a non-zero length segment to as large as the headers plus (256 * 65535) octets. Although 32-bit link layer integrity checks provide sufficient protection for contiguous data blocks up to approximately 9KB, reliance on link-layer integrity checks may be inadvisable for links with significantly larger MTUs and may not be possible at all for links such as tunnels over IPv4 that invoke fragmentation. Moreover, the segment contents of a received parcel may arrive in an incomplete and/or rearranged order with respect to their original packaging.¶

Each network layer forwarding hop as well as the final destination should verify the {TCP,UDP}/IP Checksum at its layer, since an errored header could result in mis-delivery. If a network layer protocol entity on the path detects an incorrect {TCP,UDP}/IP Checksum it should discard the entire IP parcel unless the header(s) can somehow first be repaired by lower layers.¶

To support the parcel header checksum calculation, the network layer uses modified versions of the {TCP,UDP}/IPv4 "pseudo-header" found in [RFC0768][RFC9293], or the {TCP,UDP}/IPv6 "pseudo-header" found in Section 8.1 of [RFC8200]. Note that while the contents of the two IP protocol version-specific pseudo-headers beyond the address fields are the same, the order in which the contents are arranged differs and must be honored according to the specific IP protocol version as shown in Figure 5. This allows for maximum reuse of widely deployed code while ensuring interoperability.¶

                       IPv4 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      IPv4 Source Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    IPv4 Destination Address                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      zero     |  Next Header  |        Segment Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                       IPv6 Parcel Pseudo-Header
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      IPv6 Source Address                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                   IPv6 Destination Address                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Nsegs     |             Jumbo Payload Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Segment Length         |      zero     |  Next Header  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where the following fields appear in both pseudo-headers:¶

• Source Address is the 4-octet IPv4 or 16-octet IPv6 source address of the prepared parcel.¶
• Destination Address is the 4-octet IPv4 or 16-octet IPv6 destination address of the prepared parcel.¶
• zero encodes the constant value '0'.¶
• Next Header is the IP protocol number corresponding to the transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP or UDP.¶
• Segment Length is the value that appears in the IP {Total, Payload} Length field of the prepared parcel.¶
• Nsegs is the 1-octet value that appears in the Jumbo Payload Option field of the same name.¶
• Jumbo Payload Length is the 3-octet value that appears in the Jumbo Payload Option field of the same name.¶

Transport layer protocol entities coordinate per-segment checksum processing with the network layer using a control mechanism such as a socket option. If the transport layer sets a SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option, the transport layer is responsible for supplying per-segment checksums on transmission and the network layer forwards the IP parcel to the next hop without further processing; otherwise, the network layer supplies the per-segment checksums before forwarding. If the transport layer sets a SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option, the transport layer is responsible for verifying per-segment checksums on reception and the network layer delivers each received parcel body to the transport layer without further processing; otherwise, the network layer verifies the per-segment parcel checksums before delivering.¶

When the transport layer protocol entity of the source delivers a parcel body to the network layer, it prepends an Integrity Block of (J + 1) 2-octet Checksum fields and includes a 4-octet Sequence Number field with each TCP non-first segment. If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is set, the transport layer protocol either calculates each segment checksum and writes the value into the corresponding Checksum field (and for UDP with '0' values written as 'ffff') or writes the value '0' to disable checksums for specific UDP segments. If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket options is clear, for UDP the transport layer instead writes the value '0' to disable or any non-zero value to enable checksums for specific segments (for TCP, the transport layer instead writes any value).¶

When the network layer of the source accepts the parcel body from the transport layer protocol entity, if the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is set the network layer appends the {TCP,UDP}/IP headers and forwards the parcel to the next hop without further processing. If the SO_NO_CHECK(TX) socket option is clear, the network layer instead calculates the checksum for each TCP segment (or each UDP segment with a non-zero value in the corresponding Integrity Block Checksum field) and overwrites the calculated value into the Checksum field (and for UDP with '0' values written as 'ffff').¶

When the network layer of the destination receives a parcel from the source, if the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option is set the network layer delivers the parcel body to the transport layer protocol entity without further processing, and the transport layer is responsible for per-segment checksum verification. If the SO_NO_CHECK(RX) socket option is clear, the network layer instead verifies the checksum for each TCP segment (or each UDP segment with a non-zero value in the corresponding Integrity Block Checksum field) and marks a corresponding field for the segment in an ancillary data structure as either "correct" or "incorrect". (For UDP, if the Checksum is '0' the network layer unconditionally marks the segment as "correct".) The network layer then delivers both the parcel body (beginning with the Integrity block) and ancillary data to the transport layer which can then determine which segments have correct/incorrect checksums.¶

Note: The Integrity Block itself is intentionally omitted from the IP Parcel {TCP,UDP} header checksum calculation. This permits destinations to accept as many intact segments as possible from received parcels with checksum block bit errors, whereas the entire parcel would need to be discarded if the header checksum also covered the Integrity Block.¶

8. IP Jumbograms

True IPv6 jumbograms are distinguished from IPv6 parcels by including a zero IPv6 Payload Length and an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option with type '11001110' and length '00000100'. The Jumbo Payload option format and all aspects of IPv6 jumbogram processing are exactly as specified in [RFC2675].¶

True IPv4 jumbograms are distinguished from IPv4 parcels by including a zero IPv4 Total Length and an IPv4 option with type '00001011' and length '00000110'. The Jumbo Payload option format and all aspects of IPv4 jumbogram processing are exactly the same as for IPv6 jumbograms except that the Jumbo Payload length also includes the length of the IPv4 header (whereas IPv6 jumbograms only include the length of the IPv6 extension headers).¶

This specification augments IP jumbograms by also providing a Jumbo Path Qualification function using the mechanisms specified in Section 6. The function employs a "Jumbo Probe" with headers formed the same as for Parcel Probes, but with the Nsegs/Jumbo Payload Length fields converted to a single 32-bit Jumbo Payload Length field and with the final 4 octets converted to a single 32-bit PMTU field. The purpose of the Jumbo Probe is to determine whether the entire path from the source to the destination is jumbo-capable (i.e., one in which all links recognize jumbograms and configure an MTU larger than 65535 octets) as well as to determine the jumbo path MTU.¶

The source prepares a Jumbo Probe by first setting the IP {Total, Payload} length field to the special value '1' to distinguish this as a Jumbo Probe and not an ordinary parcel or jumbogram. The source then sets {Protocol, Next Header} to {TCP,UDP}, sets the {TCP,UDP} port to '9' (discard) and either includes no octets beyond the {TCP,UDP} header or a single discard payload of the desired probe size (note that the probe does not include an Integrity Block). The source then sets Jumbo Payload Length to the length of the {TCP,UDP} header plus the length of the discard payload plus the length of the full IP header for IPv4 or the extension headers for IPv6.¶

The source next sets the Jumbo Probe PMTU to the full 32-bit MTU of the (jumbo-capable) next hop link, (and for IPv4 sets Code to 255 and Check to the next hop TTL) then calculates the {TCP,UDP} Checksum for the probe headers the same as for a parcel and sends the probe via the link toward the final destination. At each IPv4 forwarding hop, the router examines Code and Check and returns a negative "Jumbo Reply" (i.e., prepared the same as a Parcel Reply) if either value is incorrect. Otherwise, if the next hop link is jumbo-capable the router compares PMTU to the next hop link MTU, resets PMTU to the minimum value (and for IPv4 sets Check to the next hop TTL) then silently forwards the probe to the next hop. If the next hop link is not jumbo-capable, the router instead drops the probe and returns a negative Jumbo Reply.¶

If the Jumbo Probe encounters an OMNI link, the OAL source can either drop the probe and return a negative Jumbo Reply or forward the probe further toward the OAL destination using adaptation layer encapsulation. If the OAL source already knows the OAL path MTU for this OAL destination, it can encapsulate and forward the Jumbo Probe with PMTU set to the minimum of itself and the known value (minus the adaptation layer header size), and without adding any padding octets. If the OAL path MTU is unknown, the OAL source can instead encapsulate the Jumbo Probe in an adaptation layer IPv6 header with a Jumbo Payload option and with NULL padding octets added beyond the end of the encapsulated Jumbo Probe to form an adaptation layer jumbogram no larger than the minimum of PMTU and (2**24 - 1) octets (minus the adaptation layer header size). The OAL source then writes this size into the Jumbo Probe PMTU field and forwards the newly-created adaptation layer jumbogram toward the OAL destination, where it may be lost due to a link restriction. If the jumbogram somehow traverses the path, the OAL destination then removes the adaptation layer encapsulation, discards the padding, then forwards the probe onward toward the final destination (with each hop reducing PMTU if necessary).¶

If the Jumbo Probe reaches the final destination, the final destination returns a positive Jumbo Reply with the PMTU set to the maximum-sized jumbogram that can transit the path. (Note that the jumbo probing process is conducted independently of any parcel probing, and the two processes may yield very different results.)¶

Note: if the original source can in some way determine that a Jumbo Probe is likely to transit the path without loss due to a size restriction, it can optionally include real {TCP,UDP} data instead of discard data. The network layer of the final destination will then deliver the data to the transport layer and return a Probe Reply the same as discussed above.¶

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

9. Implementation Status

Common widely-deployed implementations include services such as TCP Segmentation Offload (TSO) and Generic Segmentation/Receive Offload (GSO/GRO). These services support a robust service that has been shown to improve performance in many instances.¶

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

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

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

10. IANA Considerations

The IANA is instructed to change the "MTUP - MTU Probe" entry in the 'ip option numbers' registry to the "JUMBO - IPv4 Jumbo Payload" option. The Copy and Class fields must both be set to 0, and the Number and Value fields must both be set to '11'. The reference must be changed to this document [RFCXXXX].¶

11. Security Considerations

In the control plane, original sources match the Identification values in received Parcel Replys with their corresponding Parcels or Parcel Probes. If the values match, the reply is likely authentic. In environments where stronger authentication is necessary, nodes that send Parcel Replys can apply the message authentication services specified for AERO/OMNI.¶

In the data plane, multi-layer security solutions may be needed to ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability. Since parcels are defined only for TCP and UDP, IP layer securing services such as IPsec-AH/ESP [RFC4301] cannot be applied directly to parcels, although they can certainly be used below the network or adaptation layers such as for transmission of parcels over VPNs and/or OMNI link secured spanning trees. Since the network layer does not manipulate transport layer segments, parcels do not interfere with transport- or higher-layer security services such as (D)TLS/SSL [RFC8446] which may provide greater flexibility in some environments.¶

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

12. Acknowledgements

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

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

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

Appendix A. TCP Extensions for High Performance

TCP Extensions for High Performance are specified in [RFC7323], which updates earlier work that began in the late 1980's and early 1990's. These efforts determined that the TCP 16-bit Window was too small to accommodate sustained transmission at high data rates and devised a TCP Window Scale option to allow window sizes up to 2^30. The work also defined a Timestamp option used for round-trip time measurements and as a Protection Against Wrapped Sequences (PAWS) at high data rates. TCP users of IP parcels are strongly encouraged to adopt these measures.¶

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

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

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

Finally, if the parcel contains more than 65535 octets of data (i.e., spread across multiple segments), then the Urgent Pointer can be regarded in the same manner as for jumbograms as described in Section 5.2 of [RFC2675].¶

Appendix B. Implications of Extreme L Values

The transport layer can specify any L value up to 65535 octets, with a minimum of 2 octets for UDP and 5 octets for TCP, while the special L value '1' indicates the presence of a Jumbo Probe (see: Section 8). While acceptable within standard parcel parameters, "tiny" L values close to the above minima should appear primarily in control segments since transport protocols normally exchange data segments that are considerably larger. Transport protocols that send small isolated control and/or data segments may instead elect to package them as ordinary packets while packaging larger data segments as parcels. Transport protocol streams therefore often include a mix of parcels and ordinary packets.¶

The transport layer should also specify an L value no larger than can accommodate the maximum-sized transport and network layer headers that the source will include without causing a single segment plus headers to exceed 65535 octets. For example, if the source will include a 28 octet TCP header plus a 40 octet IPv6 header with 24 extension header octets (plus a 2 octet per-segment checksum) the transport should specify an L value no larger than (65535 - 28 - 40 - 24 - 2) = 65441 octets.¶

The transport can specify still larger L values up to 65535 octets, but the resulting parcels might be lost along some paths resulting in unpredictable behavior. For example, a parcel with L set as large as 65535 might be able to transit paths that can pass jumbograms natively but might not be able to transit a path that includes non-jumbo links. The transport layer should therefore carefully consider the benefits of constructing parcels with L values larger than the recommended maximum due to high risk of loss compared with only modest incremental performance benefits.¶

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

Appendix C. IP Parcel Futures

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

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

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

In addition to the clear near-term benefits, IP parcels will increase performance to new levels as future parcel-capable links with very large MTUs begin to emerge. These links will provide MTUs far in excess of 64KB to as large as 16MB. With such large MTUs, the traditional CRC-32 (or even CRC-64) error checking with errored packet discard discipline will no longer apply for large parcels. Instead, parcels larger than a link-specific threshold will include Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes so that errored parcels can be repaired at the receiver's data link layer then delivered to higher layers rather than being discarded and triggering retransmission of large amounts of data. Even if the FEC repairs are incomplete or imperfect, all parcels can still be delivered to higher layers where the individual segment checksums will detect and discard any damaged data not repaired by the link and/or adaptation layers.¶

These new "super-links" will appear mostly in the network edges (e.g., high-performance data centers) and not as often in the middle of the Internet. (However, some space-domain links that extend over enormous distances may also benefit.) For this reason, a common use case will include parcel-capable super-links in the edge networks of both parties of an end-to-end session with an OMNI link connecting the two over wide area Internetworks. Medium- to moderately large-sized IP parcels over OMNI links will already provide considerable performance benefits for wide-area end-to-end communications while truly large IP parcels over super-links can provide boundless increases for localized bulk transfers in edge networks or for deep space long haul transmissions. The ability to grow and adapt without practical bound enabled by IP parcels will inevitably encourage new data link development leading to future innovations in new markets that will revolutionize the Internet.¶

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

Appendix D. Change Log

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

Changes from earlier versions:¶

• Submit for Intarea Standards Track RFC Publication.¶

Author's Address