Re: [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Thu, 16 November 2017 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EF7127909; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:35:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telekom.de header.b=XxFYJfoz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=telekom.onmicrosoft.de header.b=Jip1LsEp
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 3wIcKkLxs1FF; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout24.telekom.de (MAILOUT24.telekom.de [80.149.113.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50CB21200CF; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:34:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telekom.de; i=@telekom.de; q=dns/txt; s=dtag1; t=1510828498; x=1542364498; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=n68tTDUAmgL03YLi25ZhREIgDLgrqlDcdBh6SPYRf2M=; b=XxFYJfozc62tHAzYSdiHslIhn9G07l+H6MPlM1jEON3RrY4TWjDZhKeD +u4k8lNcQx9KbiqblycnZKDyBHbTmxisQfxiJwli0mrDpHJ6cAeyldY4D 0UZhGM2grFJfqDi23GeMcRPro1HF+7EYJRU+nqMWu5wAUQbFJhlBY0eh5 wT0qxq8xAIWLHeEPgIdrdChntaYXexwY8pNU0ZaBhbCWTPNgw1zRV2oLu 6b9/rda2ZasQQjHJOZpm9ZGMINFezMNJ5LE5p9/V+9Ynz8fGxPdiRtaCg D33m+/Cy9sdPgs+XJ8Ay79JiMKmvN06PVjIitBaTIYt8t/hcRm3cqcoDO A==;
Received: from qdec94.de.t-internal.com ([10.171.255.41]) by MAILOUT21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Nov 2017 11:34:50 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.44,402,1505772000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="66228357"
Received: from he106140.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.169.119.73]) by QDEC97.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 16 Nov 2017 11:33:48 +0100
Received: from HE199745.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.53) by HE106140.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:33:47 +0100
Received: from HE100181.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.171.40.15) by HE199745.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:33:47 +0100
Received: from GER01-LEJ-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.de (51.5.80.20) by O365mail02.telekom.de (172.30.0.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:33:11 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telekom.onmicrosoft.de; s=selector1-telekom-onmicrosoft-de; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=n68tTDUAmgL03YLi25ZhREIgDLgrqlDcdBh6SPYRf2M=; b=Jip1LsEpF9c6VBgNUBGvzd7NEA5yPFaRQ6vuQHYI4ACn5hJfiE+tZ353iGo0wu/bP1bJ2pLTbR99YWMXSBhSlCEdjqsBRyNj0DqhMI2O/yxGIERw4jFMGMIy6ZCUd5w/OOXzgRFxe1baD8V/KSkgySb0A7Dd/IMSCLzbnJhuoPI=
Received: from LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (10.158.163.139) by LEXPR01MB0093.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (10.158.163.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.239.5; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:33:46 +0000
Received: from LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::7981:1758:a216:9354]) by LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::7981:1758:a216:9354%15]) with mapi id 15.20.0239.005; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:33:46 +0000
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: david.i.allan@ericsson.com
CC: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com, draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org, zali@cisco.com
Thread-Topic: Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?
Thread-Index: AQHTXsB5BCJrV+0rHU6rYv+hD+zREqMWxNWAgAAItsA=
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:33:46 +0000
Message-ID: <LEXPR01MB00940EBA6B17C737022F5F529C2E0@LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
References: <CA+RyBmUHAkuA3o-LpHhMwCbkh0k+emt9OZ3B8Njj2h=jaasTZw@mail.gmail.com> <3B1EE673-044F-4E47-9C56-6FF360905C58@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE3047CEC9@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmVC2OjEs-=1WsL13eBmycZtnYnM8ybSdmWhGPByLKNQfA@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR03MB171328C37B726DE4AFF862D39D2E0@AM4PR03MB1713.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmUE1vZd-T8mrNmrf8FbP_fGhzLvn9kEQQ3A=FUJazJQMg@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2922B0AAC@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C68FD7FCD@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C68FD7FCD@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de;
x-originating-ip: [164.19.3.155]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; LEXPR01MB0093; 6:L3rlXnLtvMMtYZX3gsD+CGsdcQvIunPbZmJHnX2Kx5yQt/8CxNy8E456BBLGq6Fi1ugWlOr4eoBI0QM5e1wamv2Uay8jRqTMiPFzcIsaXeGG3VuoB6js6RB+VhhJ5VMu/359kIL47NpSWv8rd+nRvj11jTbXSwAdoblrAxSkbQcrZvJCXU6oKOorQyr/0Red/MP9KXFzh8z2zjCmAh2f6hbfyrVzjBbFNPFYm/gSfkrBZ57W46hEOQUmEv780pwVfJTxh7EBVf6HnE/7d0uUZkd+pQEuxL8x26F2ZsogNW5OgZJecM4sCw0yLRw25g+5tC6onP6UPMqwLKcJTA6RICuluYTjNN92MCNOea8SvlI=; 5:STLYE8vhW3KdyJTGBxAvEgIgk49TrsTipQmfF5aq0YOZo6VSVAl6jhI8KyUljTq3eyOZ4X0Py0AStOPRkPgWVzgMJWd8AEyR8HxZKmDPdX2n2fnraqRVA6gjLhxr6pN791IQ2g5NmQhfmNwgdRKcChbUyIWxZNYim/IpPvCXvDI=; 24:q4eedCaVyrurB90qTWqZE0wkmgZSFR7uzWzjpshP6y7/35eXwHFln14Dr+6XguWyXli1PhMcC6SyEMXnLIkuj71e+iL5GHb7TseA4hkVtq8=; 7:wtROg2Dc3tuvHWNciJ0pw4gIDVmploR//vz3J5Wa3MEgXSKawmlmr2zkA/B7WyhBSfXjdioszpj5f9Es7xoTgY6dzB60WuobWYFBBkRgpMc+BHgZWWttXrRg5i84Zjsb4ARHQEQH8en90aUXg1M/nx0kXDCtGmi8MkkY73H1ExO2WI88uNOx1S5ZF8nZlk1DakuJTwFQDciMJA2+8572pKNl/CAI+QJixDbVhSSNPFUbH8dSz3MeSaHs9Kbb1f7d
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6a6d0751-f5d6-49d3-410d-08d52cdd849f
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603199); SRVR:LEXPR01MB0093;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LEXPR01MB0093:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <LEXPR01MB0093F2C1DEFE3EFC26A6C77F9C2E0@LEXPR01MB0093.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(50582790962513)(259379197776797)(95692535739014)(227612066756510)(21748063052155)(279101305709854);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703101)(100105400095)(3231022)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:LEXPR01MB0093; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:LEXPR01MB0093;
x-forefront-prvs: 0493852DA9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(376002)(252514010)(199003)(37854004)(24454002)(189002)(51444003)(53754006)(377424004)(3280700002)(7696004)(4001150100001)(189998001)(3660700001)(66066001)(75402003)(106356001)(6916009)(2900100001)(54906003)(4326008)(2950100002)(316002)(478600001)(5660300001)(93886005)(72206003)(74482002)(966005)(97736004)(85182001)(33656002)(55016002)(53546010)(53936002)(7736002)(2906002)(53946003)(14454004)(76176999)(8936002)(5250100002)(50986999)(85202003)(105586002)(345774005)(68736007)(54356999)(8676002)(81166006)(9686003)(101416001)(54896002)(236005)(6306002)(790700001)(102836003)(3846002)(81156014)(606006)(86362001)(6116002)(777600001)(579004)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:LEXPR01MB0093; H:LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: telekom.de does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_LEXPR01MB00940EBA6B17C737022F5F529C2E0LEXPR01MB0094DEUP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6a6d0751-f5d6-49d3-410d-08d52cdd849f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Nov 2017 10:33:46.6748 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bde4dffc-4b60-4cf6-8b04-a5eeb25f5c4f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LEXPR01MB0093
X-OriginatorOrg: telekom.de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/HHDDrtWPbmY3M3Dq-blpBgga380>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:35:04 -0000

Dave,

there’s a scalability aspect in TE traffic matrix calculation if TE isn’t based on RSVP-TE.

Regards, Ruediger

DA> BTW transmit measurement points without e2e measurement points strikes me as bizarre….

The view from here
Dave

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:51 PM
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>; Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>; Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com<mailto:Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>>; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>
Subject: [spring] Whether both E2E and SPME performance measurement for MPLS-SR is needed?

Hi all,

I agree with Sasha and Greg here!

I think the first thing we need to agree on the requirements, then discuss the solution will make more sense. I would ask the following questions:


1.      Is only E2E PM needed for MPLS-SR?

2.      Is only SPME PM needed for MPLS-SR?

3.      Are both E2E and SPME PM needed for MPLS-SR?

Best regards,
Mach


From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; spring; mpls; Michael Gorokhovsky; draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org>; Zafar Ali (zali)
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi Sasha,
many thanks.
I'd point to SR OAM Requirements<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03> (regrettably expired):

   REQ#13:  SR OAM MUST have the ability to measure Packet loss, Packet

            Delay or Delay variation using Active (using synthetic

            probe) and Passive (using data stream) mode.



I think that our discussion indicates that OAM requirements document is useful at least for as long as we're developing OAM toolset. And the document will benefit from clarification to reflect our discussion that PM may be performed both e2e and over SPME.



Regards,

Greg

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:
Greg,
I concur with your position: let’s first  of all agree that ability to measure traffic carried by an SR-TE LSP in a specific transit node is a require OAM function for SR.

I have looked up the SR OAM Use Cases<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase/?include_text=1> draft, and I did not find any relevant use cases there.
The only time measurements are mentioned is a reference to an expired implementation report<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report-00> draft discussing delay measurements.  Since delay measurements are in any case based on synthetic traffic, and are always end-to-end (one-way or two-way), this reference is not relevant, IMHO, for this discussion.

I have added the authors of the SR OAM Use Cases draft to tis thread.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302<tel:+972%203-926-6302>
Cell:      +972-549266302<tel:+972%2054-926-6302>
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:28 AM
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>>
Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com<mailto:zali@cisco.com>>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Dear All,
I cannot imagine that operators will agree to deploy network that lacks critical OAM tools to monitor performance and troubleshoot the network. True, some will brave the challenge and be the early adopters but even they will likely request that the OAM toolbox be sufficient to support their operational needs. I see that this work clearly describes the problem and why ability to quantify the flow behavior at internal nodes is important for efficient network operation. First let's discuss whether the case and requirement towards OAM is real and valid. Then we can continue to discussion of what measurement method to use.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>> wrote:
Concur. Although it has some values, it's not cost-efficient from my point of view. Network simplicity should be the first priority object. Hence we would have to make some compromise.

Best regards,
Xiaohu
________________________________
徐小虎 Xuxiaohu
M:+86-13910161692<tel:+86-13910161692>
E:xuxiaohu@huawei.com<mailto:xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
产品与解决方案-网络战略与业务发展部
Products & Solutions-Network Strategy & Business Development Dept
发件人: Zafar Ali (zali)
收件人: Greg Mirsky<gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>;draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths<draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>;mpls<mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>;spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
主题: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
时间: 2017-11-16 02:24:10

Hi,

This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, which states:
“SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.”

In addition to creating states at transit and egress nodes, the procedure also affects the data plane and makes it unscalable. It also makes controller job much harder and error prune. In summary, I find the procedure very complex and unscalable.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM
To: "draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>" <draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org<mailto:draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths@ietf.org>>, "mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi Shraddha,
thank you for very well written and thought through draft. I have these questions I'd like to discuss:

  *   Have you thought of using not one special purpose label for both SR Path Identifier and SR Path Identifier+Source SID cases but request two special purpose labels, one for each case. Then the SR Path Identifier would not have to lose the bit for C flag.
  *   And how you envision to collect the counters along the path? Of course, a Controller may query LSR for all counters or counters for the particular flow (SR Path Identifier+Source SID). But in addition I'd propose to use in-band mechanism, perhaps another special purpose label, to trigger the LSR to send counters of the same flow with the timestamp out-band to the predefined Collector.
  *   And the last, have you considered ability to flush counters per flow. In Scalability Considerations you've stated that counters are maintained as long as collection of statistics is enabled. If that is on the node scope, you may have to turn off/on the collection to flush off some old counters. I think that finer granularity, per flow granularity would be useful for operators. Again, perhaps the flow itself may be used to signal the end of the measurement and trigger release of counters.
Regards,
Greg


___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________