Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2023 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7865EC15C2B4 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1sdTCjY4sd2B for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 926B2C15C2AF for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id z83so17928526ybb.2 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680066857; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xf25MJt2VzSJnAYrSxfmIxK6si0SWH7qbWmarjCFME8=; b=bqatfykG7WhRr5JTe9h0rSsQc9eVd0uqmKVzfkSJ4mZra+/bM3fF6LQSKlUf+PVTWk K+LXBBSzzAr19DM0xbb/MZxjb/iDiuP+JRhTJKBLQW3mgNKRO8bRGLAASa12U8lFUOMM xnCEnwrwYf7CSvbignRcZfF5TF8K5yekfjdPsHW0K/26AK8igzpjYubH+668+aVqLLqJ cd7r/NuHyX7LaBjaEkfaeec2gj1HIDoUKf5Wgg77M37keA0TMJwDvU0eQPhTbwu+pOfi HeX44cYj4iH04lsFbAV0uZd4VuRC80CsvTI6xpC2NUaIHpbj8U1LtdfBLJ4EHmfzaP3e 15zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680066857; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xf25MJt2VzSJnAYrSxfmIxK6si0SWH7qbWmarjCFME8=; b=IwAR0q2le6REeC/WBuAMwtciu4lyfz7sWf158C7zI09tGVU1ttz52fN1tf5vRRmZ6m 6vFEwYXAhng35AQpw0We1o5x07jIIwJHBDiAB2TiLB6rn8HVC1UXG3Yao0KKFVSfVJHD 1TA6QrI/GEprgjYJM9wKUC4wPrsubyWRBaCsHyY11s0+Sq9lU7KjVwV4jjl6s6DToM9F bh1zNxsniidqsuQSKQjOZo0dOGe5TK9EOZXEF1LujUIekMORiU8vh2Q/pPyULPw0WTBf szghqB72R1g8rFqNw79OzH2vknyZ6o4SmaR6EQe4zXzt/TUwP1GrUKDRQtHExFghC9kH 4kVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dixsoZf+vTb8NCsMb8A0HzlM5GXYERE5Ufcw+oaf0umelcWDLE aRN71xwUo5OEkl2GmXIpRgoCKwsKGJE/C5HBv/7NLZI/iWU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bEd0asEo/D8bgyDxnw/djUMUncmrtnCCmf6dadrPi4zfzjp0Zd1Je7W7MlRyMunChKNJTZIydWxfuRnJrN570=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1586:b0:b77:676c:773c with SMTP id k6-20020a056902158600b00b77676c773cmr12092972ybu.2.1680066857241; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 22:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2300561a22bd44d6a06db8c3360427d6@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <2300561a22bd44d6a06db8c3360427d6@huawei.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:14:06 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmX09YVkhrG0fk5N_QSyPhX+BVik4SSFktG2OhPHEDGs2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Cc: "Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, "alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr" <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039906805f8030c34"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/CMXc783fIZLxi0_cskORc2RUj6k>
Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:14:22 -0000

Hi Tianran,
I believe that there is a strong interest in the WG to see IOAM Yang data
model include IOAM-DEX, regardless of the semantics of how IOAM and
IOAM-DEX have been defined in respective RFCs. In my opinion, it is about
the usefulness of the YANG data model, not about formal naming. I feel that
it is well-understood already that, strictly speaking, IOAM-DEX behavior in
regard to transporting operational state and telemetry information is
different from how IOAM behaves. But, I am also convinced that that
difference has insignificant impact on the YANG data model which is far
smaller then staring a new draft.
I think it is time to set semantics aside and look into adding support of
IOAM-DEX into the YANG data model document. Let me know how I can help.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:44 PM Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> Greg> Whether IOAM DEX is an integral part of IOAM?
> Thomas> Yes I believe it is.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9197#section-4.1 describes the
> initial option types where
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#abstract adds an IOAM
> option type called direct export.
>
> ZTR> I understand what Greg concerned is from the definition. In RFC9197:
> " IOAM records OAM information within the packet while the packet
> traverses a particular network domain."
> This is different from the IOAM-DEX behavior.
>
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com [mailto:Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com]
> 发送时间: 2023年3月27日 9:17
> 收件人: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com;
> alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr; gregimirsky@gmail.com
> 抄送: ippm@ietf.org
> 主题: RE: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
>
> Dear Tianran, Dear Greg
>
> Thanks a lot for the summary my apology for late reply.
>
> I have been reviewing Greg's comments and below my reply.
>
> Greg> The scope of the IOAM YANG data model - is limited to configuration
> or also includes the presentation of IOAM data types defined in RFC 9197?
> Thomas> I suggest to change the following sentence in the abstract from
>
> "This document defines a YANG module for the IOAM function."
>
> To
>
> "This document defines a YANG module for configuring IOAM functions."
>
>
> Greg> Whether IOAM DEX is an integral part of IOAM?
> Thomas> Yes I believe it is.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9197#section-4.1 describes the
> initial option types where
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#abstract adds an IOAM
> option type called direct export.
>
> Greg> Should the IOAM YANG data model enable the configuration of an IOAM
> node in IOAM-DEX trace mode?
> Thomas> Yes it should. Reviewing
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-04#section-3.4,
> and looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#section-3.2,
> I think the configuration options proposed matches what can be configured.
> However, looking at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#section-6, I believe this
> needs to be addressed in draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang.
>
> Greg> Whether the control of only IOAM operational state (enable/disable)
> on a transit node creates a new DDoS attack vector against that node.
> Consequently, how can this risk be mitigated?
> Thomas> This has already been answered in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#section-6. I suggest that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang#section-5draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang
> is expanded by describing how the following objective
>
> - Selective DEX (Section 3.1.1) is applied by IOAM encapsulating nodes in
> order to limit the potential impact of DEX attacks to a small fraction of
> the traffic.
>
> Described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9326#section-6 can
> be addressed by configuring filter. Since data export is out of scope, I
> believe the following objectives
>
> - Rate limiting of exported traffic (Section 3.1.2) is applied by IOAM
> nodes in order to prevent overloading attacks and to significantly limit
> the scale of amplification attacks.
> - IOAM encapsulating nodes are required to avoid pushing the DEX
> Option-Type into IOAM exported packets (Section 3.1.2), thus preventing
> some of the amplification and export loop scenarios.
>
> Are out of scope for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang. Would you agree?
>
> Greg> Should the model support the presentation of the looped-back IOAM
> packet with the Loopback flag set?
> Thomas> You are referring to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9322.
> I think it should. Yes.
>
> Greg> Should the model support the use of (configuration and presentation
> of the test outcomes) the Active IOAM flag?
> Thomas> Not sure if I understand this question. If it means wherever
> draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang should cover operational metrics describing how
> many packets have been sent, this would indeed from a network operator
> point of view beneficial.
>
> Greg> Should the configuration of IOAM over IPv6 and/or NSH be part of
> this document?
> Thomas> Could you elaborate why configuration is different depending
> packet encapsulation being used.
>
> Best wishes
> Thomas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 3:19 PM
> To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>;
> alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr
> Cc: ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Please see the discussions during the LC, between Greg and me.
>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fippm%2Fs91KTSsmbHMotegy9f-6zWUSUWw&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VYnv4VnFOg3zF665A7%2Fog6twTHHnQ5WLjIgJDxLC5JE%3D&reserved=0
>
> At last, there are still several concerns as follows. The authors
> discussed, we can eliminate most of the questions by excluding IOAM-DEX in
> this draft.
>
>       - The scope of the IOAM YANG data model - is limited to configuration
>       or also includes the presentation of IOAM data types defined in RFC
> 9197?
>       - Whether IOAM DEX is an integral part of IOAM?
>       - Should the IOAM YANG data model enable the configuration of an IOAM
>       node in IOAM-DEX trace mode?
>       - Whether the control of only IOAM operational state (enable/disable)
>       on a transit node creates a new DDoS attack vector against that node.
>       Consequently, how can this risk be mitigated?
>       - Should the model support the presentation of the looped-back IOAM
>       packet with the Loopback flag set?
>       - Should the model support the use of (configuration and presentation
>       of the test outcomes) the Active IOAM flag?
>       - Should the configuration of IOAM over IPv6 and/or NSH be part of
>       this document?
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com [mailto:Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:34 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>; mailto:
> alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr
> Cc: mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
>
> Dear Tianran,
>
> I share Alex and Greg's concerns and would appreciate that you detail
> where IOAM-DEX does not follow the IOAM definition and where IOAM options
> adds complexity in YANG. I think this needs to be addresses within the
> working group. I gladly support the discussion.
>
> Best wishes
> Thomas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm <mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 9:17 AM
> To: Alex Huang Feng <mailto:alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>; Tianran Zhou
> <mailto:zhoutianran=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> There are several concerns from the WG wrt IOAM-DEX, including:
> 1. IOAM-DEX does not follow the IOAM definition. Maybe we need a new
> definition for both or exclude IOAM-DEX from this draft.
> 2. The IOAM-DEX configuration may be different from other IOAM options
> with more complexity.
>
> Follow the principle with max consensus, we decided to exclude IOAM-DEX
> from this draft. So that it aligns rfc9197.
> However, this yang model is still extensible.
> We can cooperate on a new draft if you have interest.
>
> Best,
> Tianran
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alex Huang Feng
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:45 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou <mailto:zhoutianran=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
>
> Hi Tianran,
>
> I think it is pity the IOAM-DEX was removed from the draft. I feel that
> since it is already a standard, it should be in the draft.
> Any reasons why it was removed?
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> > On 16 Feb 2023, at 12:15, Tianran Zhou <mailto:zhoutianran=
> 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > We just upload a new revision.
> > The main updates include:
> > 1. Remove the IOAM-DEX and two IOAM flags to align with rfc 9197.
> > 2. Add max length constraint to both pre-allocated and incremental
> tracing.
> > 3. Add examples in the appendix.
> >
> > Your comments are welcome.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tianran
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mailto:
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 7:12 PM
> > To: mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > Cc: mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> > Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Measurement WG of the
> IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : A YANG Data Model for In-Situ OAM
> >        Authors         : Tianran Zhou
> >                          Jim Guichard
> >                          Frank Brockners
> >                          Srihari Raghavan
> >  Filename        : draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05.txt
> >  Pages           : 28
> >  Date            : 2023-02-16
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
> >   operational and telemetry information in user packets while the
> >   packets traverse a path between two points in the network.  This
> >   document defines a YANG module for the IOAM function.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang%2F&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1ceA%2FAd2SIza0QdMw9oYXBgz36%2BIroJE322LKUC%2FO8M%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > There is also an htmlized version available at:
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7R3rriq85frIAQ6fRTlgAfzYZjw6hGNiWp3nAVxhExo%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-05&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bt6pmx0st%2FqTmRViIasYVNvUSuBKlwBWYAUkD%2FifZ%2Bs%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org:
> :internet-drafts
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRuMA34DFp%2BDGGEfejBt2xD9WAOtjhIv4DZVlvEVX3U%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > mailto:ippm@ietf.org
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRuMA34DFp%2BDGGEfejBt2xD9WAOtjhIv4DZVlvEVX3U%3D&reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> mailto:ippm@ietf.org
>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRuMA34DFp%2BDGGEfejBt2xD9WAOtjhIv4DZVlvEVX3U%3D&reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> mailto:ippm@ietf.org
>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fippm&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Cf10c733234bc42eec86c08db1953c342%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638131619769712596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nRuMA34DFp%2BDGGEfejBt2xD9WAOtjhIv4DZVlvEVX3U%3D&reserved=0
>