Re: [Lsr] IPv6 Flow Label QOS marking support for 5-tuple ECMP / LAG / MLAG hash

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 30 November 2020 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4013A1008 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:28:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.609 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=S1//cGrI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ouLUbWlF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eGTvJ_8QFASL for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1BC23A109E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:28:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=35503; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1606771725; x=1607981325; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ek1NgR6CwJ204ttCIM71sH5DdsxbuNdxA0cmzeBxdAE=; b=S1//cGrIffzaR9YQ6DgR6FiCMO5EtAzMOSrKVgCJruW9Habe2AV9ydFF SBj5gLWxiw3/cG/s8aEZfsctsRWrVvGtjW8/mgPdq4j3C6rrmqOn4/+Pm fg01m9w5rgkfaDdS08VQLJAFhWe0rmZET4zHNNg4BfCKpBrvHVl5IwLlG M=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKBgCPYsVffYgNJK1fAxYGAQEBAQEBBwEBEgEBBAQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YIPgSMvIy58Wi8uCoQzg0kDjTMnihaOcIFCgREDVAMIAQEBDQEBIwoCBAEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?EoCF4ISAiU4EwIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBhjwMhXIBAQEEEhEKE?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBKQ4BDwIBBgIHBwMDAQIJGAcDAgICHwUMFAkIAgQOBAEbB4MEAYF+VwMuA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q6SD5BrAoE8iGl2gTKDBAEBBYJMgjsNC4IQCYE4gnODdoEGhVEbggCBEAEnD?= =?us-ascii?q?BCCJy4+ghtCAQEBAoEiIDEJAQUHCQgJglAzgiyTfIckjCCQV1cKgnCJF4ZpR?= =?us-ascii?q?IVRhRcDH6IUkXiMdIJzknUCBAIEBQIOAQEFgW0hgVlwFTsqAYIKATMJRxcCD?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4hCxgUgzqFFIVEdDcCAwMBCQEBAwl8jTgBgRABAQ?=
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ARGyRXB9VaYDRWf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZRCN6vBkjVuPVoLeuLpIiOvT5qbnX2FIoZOMq2sLf5EEUR?= =?us-ascii?q?gZwd4XkAotDI/gawX7IffmYjZ8EJFEU1lorH6+OElRXs35Yg6arni79zVHHB?= =?us-ascii?q?L5OEJ8Lfj0HYiHicOx2qiy9pTfbh8OiiC6ZOZ5LQ69qkPascxFjA=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,382,1599523200"; d="scan'208,217";a="604474678"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Nov 2020 21:28:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0AULSiFs016252 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:28:44 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:28:43 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:28:43 -0600
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:28:42 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=n6vdC4/TuAuVs3jzo/eo9WPsqpfT0iKWb0NkNIxNkxHc2h35mGGXJyn0w583GVos4CAzNoisnSHxLuh3uyEv70ZSfNvMx7e+Z/H9ckyUlDnQMw0QdTfjEesjqfo/l84aHXD0WdYZWRZyfnUT8EqXVbdXp8QuTdENLI3bDipjxR4D3PX8edInp7W4D3a4rl2GI+61peIe9B/KaY4gEgQ/xjYJ1iraAxW7NsuMe/N/d2y8EpbK1uYjHBnibdQuvXJACBzPA/KVpBqZUKcqFlz39fFpYH8X8pteo4YdvPv53Q7MDigYAF7Cqs6MMhxfn/gfDhGirP71ikfn2xCiyyAAXw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ek1NgR6CwJ204ttCIM71sH5DdsxbuNdxA0cmzeBxdAE=; b=b+zpAn9OhOXuXqxQsjwObTDwTsN51nNwg677q/oLMNGlTwPOQoHdApHv/Eu1AZTHHs2AELJwjwGkVakbqRDeLfu6UvuUmuspiczc36k9NVHW27dA9++anZP/YHCczjhCLaOU+GJCLFsYD4UfWl17A3VB9ASuGcglAGKTtLrU164E1P8PMGuSFzK+L7p5mzYuLi1WXI15cxtMlrhGNwGKiOBhFro9lhPpJsxzuEs6lWJ+Zmw5iX3NUCVtfPIyeYP2kV1fLsYCPHzKFqQnbTIMFWBKr45feYw55WNXrt2zUYEPBzv/pTE64uFOwNrBscIk3x4DyQD5oyPsLfvdQZsklw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ek1NgR6CwJ204ttCIM71sH5DdsxbuNdxA0cmzeBxdAE=; b=ouLUbWlF6svofCGM54OYjVoYJcj6qHSTnI/j/Xa4+Y/sDC6fJTwgcbEZDbjUbMzKi1B/YsY6Qvt8tY3xkf4xWoRzYBr2J6G1rKhKMzzfLZpsv7v2oYxD0M81ux4p1t+sxWqyuvIHre4jIRR5f+fYlIk2G/5UZMTl06EcMYE393g=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:89::27) by BY5PR11MB4022.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:18a::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3611.25; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:28:41 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::65a7:2fad:a960:2557]) by BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::65a7:2fad:a960:2557%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3611.031; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:28:41 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] IPv6 Flow Label QOS marking support for 5-tuple ECMP / LAG / MLAG hash
Thread-Index: AQHWx1aGLrP0R4SziUKJFn1wBaYj36ngzzGAgABeU4D//6+EgA==
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:28:40 +0000
Message-ID: <B48A8996-0E10-4818-81BC-47E1F2141244@cisco.com>
References: <CABNhwV3FGcEarfQH-SVuCCdgkNJnODwRrLSK3XhefQkt1Pws0A@mail.gmail.com> <6D7A677C-86BC-4A96-8C7B-70B0563631BE@cisco.com> <CABNhwV1h2B5VZNBcZmMT0ysFTCfqnU+nVCS-x01tDR_UUmyDwg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1h2B5VZNBcZmMT0ysFTCfqnU+nVCS-x01tDR_UUmyDwg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.43.20110804
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [136.56.133.70]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ba75496a-bb44-4269-82fe-08d89576e867
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR11MB4022:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR11MB4022E1DE3BD859CCCAE5768DC2F50@BY5PR11MB4022.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: gOQeGT3kbtq33osRP8/N/FiPaFK9A6ZHUHqnVz/j5svl2Cp8FrqoUHlfyw6JIqKrl6uA+Wd/6MTWQt8++wjgA/rxKlwTPpxBDhD0BZePgpnfuTAFErnVsBYDKQ6XF/JVRN3edM3BBSpDvFgZgWMKzJbBtHjoJTzZ7JADUd9VJfaASNlrD4gGr5OuA7ESDMRENhq7iHdnYesPgRgspq0GUBf/fbRd7f8UVwGrXWE0CSH5BHMH0gI/ncCTUmkA2rAcVMlnTyGE2KYq3p6ETqInfNbpKjdnZgcd6KsluFFs2yuK211b7YUw5oQa7U1B3osJVchikgqpAWksjEJ5h6H5sEFR6+8bOjLw0TeEp/GEKw+g+4EoVivlWsZUV4mQ3lBNFQEThAm9TbTkJL6pb4yH7g==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(186003)(26005)(83380400001)(2906002)(5660300002)(966005)(86362001)(6512007)(2616005)(316002)(71200400001)(33656002)(478600001)(66574015)(8936002)(6486002)(66556008)(76116006)(4326008)(64756008)(6506007)(53546011)(6916009)(66946007)(166002)(66446008)(66476007)(36756003)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?cm40REZsbnJvSWtrOTlxZkxiVGtlNDVHNUZSbVc2amtaRXBQNHhPUmkvQU5j?= =?utf-8?B?YlhzMzEwS0psNW5ZOFVveGFFbXJ2REVFaWdxaFNGTFBtS1pPdGd2SmxZZG8x?= =?utf-8?B?Q2RVeFF2MU53U21Gam1NYVRmeEthck5mL09JR2lzSkNFWHlwbU0zTzV6WmE3?= =?utf-8?B?a0ZjMy8xbTNhVkhmT1BpdHM4ZlhlRWhiL2FwWE12RzZ2a2xQVlRvUVVOQjFN?= =?utf-8?B?Ny9KbG5xUXd0SFJKU2FtYTlRTnJwUXB4dFYyNUF4TUlsVHBIVnd1UnZBWWVV?= =?utf-8?B?a2NNYkZXTi9Sb3lFc2crMjZtNFNCSm5LZTZ1OGdRNVhMek5vcktGRnVDV3Br?= =?utf-8?B?RXlQKzJDbE0ycVNIZk80Wm9INjFqRTVSM1NwelRYK3BNU1hVYW9xWldETmhO?= =?utf-8?B?Q0RXditXUnZ4bmdlNzRaVXE4SG5QTXRiUVZjUUppRTljazcyS3RTMW1BZENo?= =?utf-8?B?LzRvOXVLdGNZS3ZFd01SeU55ZW1YNlpiQWhpN2FPSGRoZThUZTF4eTNmSWhV?= =?utf-8?B?U3VNY2NqeC9JSVFLYTBzOGZCWDJISjV2a0NwRFNNS3d5M3NMVGJXSC91d2pk?= =?utf-8?B?QkpOa1p4MHdSSlpEN0lDVk1xdXdYSk9YdGF6V0lYVktEQnNVMGErZXJQaUY0?= =?utf-8?B?UkZHUEVHZnBSREVMMVpZSjJwMUlxYXdMYWM3RWtZUHBpN1ozQURucmRQZDNG?= =?utf-8?B?UUpqVE5HdTZQZ0RJMUJZL3FWekJLbDdZWjg3bWFpMkh0bWlxYUkxYWNtY2pk?= =?utf-8?B?aGxVUFhGS0h1Q2RzZVRZM1BzSGJUbjRXZHdlYWo5bHRtMzhGcmZGYjZVdHJu?= =?utf-8?B?eW5rQ3NEOEYwa3h1LzVSbEE1WEo1bzZRS0U4WjEvUHBSaE5DTlNYUVNqVmJy?= =?utf-8?B?cEdFelJkWGltMWZIeHpYemtnTnhueVRJL1J1emgzU2V5QzFDZ0c4S3ZhR0s2?= =?utf-8?B?QlNYRFMxMmZTcS9XQS9WeEJmNG1OZ2xuVlVaWTZKa1lKc0YrWVV6VzdZYnVx?= =?utf-8?B?bmRLZWo3WUExSjBaSmlyOFBGcjhMZFVmNE9GVCtCUEFEUWFZQ3JBSTlMOWJW?= =?utf-8?B?SjZGM1duVWFDanBzVXZjRWVVdDBydEp1bEUzZkVDY1RXOFZJVEd6Rm5LZnlt?= =?utf-8?B?RmRXeWxocjNRcVZFQ1RZWmo0cUNQRDRGZWJkR0hQWkVVc0pMMDVLL3FRNzJY?= =?utf-8?B?NE9FRko2QjErbDJBNHpEMFpSeTloMnZESEplVWxrTU1Yck9DWWROZjJUbXh0?= =?utf-8?B?dFEzVmxOZ1FFUW5xamtteEVSeElZdCtNNjNWWVZudmt3cVhYTWo1NlFrR05y?= =?utf-8?Q?b2B8LR7Svol+MWm8V5OltztgHgImkfoI5q?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B48A89960E10481881BC47E1F2141244ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ba75496a-bb44-4269-82fe-08d89576e867
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Nov 2020 21:28:40.9813 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 0FcqxIEC/fbOlWUqSglr8HtybTfRKMy3i+QJ+PgOk0LFRUs+y6PLYb+VRfBiZLQ9
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR11MB4022
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/6kCoH0q4b8pZHQp8GWgDfnG8eB0>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IPv6 Flow Label QOS marking support for 5-tuple ECMP / LAG / MLAG hash
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:28:48 -0000

There is nothing in OSPF or IS-IS protocols related to the ECMP load-balancing with respect to the flow label. RFC 6437 is an IPv6 WG (predecessor of 6MAN) document. Are you just trying to torment me 😉

Acee

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 4:23 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IPv6 Flow Label QOS marking support for 5-tuple ECMP / LAG / MLAG hash

Hi Acee

6MAN deals with the IPv6 protocol specifications and not routing protocols in the ECMP load balancing framework.

6MAN would not have any idea if ISIS or OSPF AFI IPv6 5-tuple ECMP load balancing is supported and industry direction to support this critical feature from a IGP perspective.

This question posed is in the context of LSR IGP load balancing framework, OSPF & ISIS  AFI IPv6 use of RFC 6437 for 5-tuple hash ECMP load balancing for even 50/50 load balancing hash as opposed to router default flow or session based load balancing.

Any feedback related in this context is  much appreciated.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:39 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Speaking as LSR Co-Chair:

Hi Gyan,
This is more a discussion for the 6MAN WG. Here is the charter for the LSR WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/
No need to cross-post to the LSR list…
Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 3:22 PM
To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Lsr] IPv6 Flow Label QOS marking support for 5-tuple ECMP / LAG / MLAG hash


Dear LSR WG experts,


Does anyone know if vendors have started or plan to start supporting IPv6 flow label 5-tuple dscp marking for ECMP hashing.

IPv6 flow label support for ECMP

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6437

IPv4 has traditionally always utilized recommended BCP of flow based load balancing due to issues related to out of order and reordering of packets.  Although per packet load balancing is supported by most vendors it is not recommended due to forwarding plane impact.

This IPv6 flow label feature of 5-tuple hash provides significant advantages for operators much needed ECMP load balancing entropy as compare to traditional “flow or session” based load balancing which is the case as well with MPLS entropy label RFC 6790 load balancing contrasted below.

IPv6 flow label has significant  benefits for operators deploying  SRv6 which utilizes the IPv6 data plane to now have “native” built in ECMP entropy as part of the protocol as compare to its predecessor IPv4.

This gives SRv6 another significant edge over MPLS predecessor.

Excerpt from RFC 6437:


      Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT

      depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed.  In

      any usage such as a hash key for load distribution, the Flow Label

      bits MUST be combined at least with bits from other sources within

      the packet, so as to produce a constant hash value for each flow

      and a suitable distribution of hash values across flows.

      Typically, the other fields used will be some or all components of

      the usual 5-tuple.  In this way, load distribution will still

      occur even if the Flow Label values are poorly distributed.



   Although uniformly distributed flow label values are recommended

   below, and will always be helpful for load distribution, it is unsafe

   to assume their presence in the general case, and the use case needs

   to work even if the flow label value is zero.



   As a general practice, packet flows should not be reordered, and the

   use of the Flow Label field does not affect this.  In particular, a

   Flow label value of zero does not imply that reordering is

   acceptable.





Below comparison of IPv6 flow label benefits over MPLS entropy label:





! MPLS Entropy label

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6790







As a comparison to MPLS entropy label, the mpls entropy label reduces the control plane label binding and LFIB forwarding plane data structure by not having a per ECMP path label allocation per FEC by adding an additional entropy label to the label stack.





However MPLS entropy label is still uses the traditional flow or session based load balancing algorithm which results in

uneven load balancing.





Kind Regards



Gyan



--

Error! Filename not specified.<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD



--

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD