Re: [spring] [OPSAWG] [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

[[e-mail]]

Hi Gyan,

Thank you very much. Perfect we are in line. All ack on your comments.


  *   With MPLS we are label swapping however with SR you are label stacking.  So let's say you have an SR-TE path instantiated and using the strict ERO path with adjacency SIDs defined,  would just the active label being used in the forwarding plane be the one that IPFIX would be monitoring versus the entire stack of labels.

Correct. IE46 is only referencing the top label. We do not know these additional dimensions for the other labels in the label stack. Same as all other IE below, just as reference.

46        mplsTopLabelType
47        mplsTopLabelIPv4Address
70        mplsTopLabelStackSection
91        mplsTopLabelPrefixLength
140       mplsTopLabelIPv6Address
200       mplsTopLabelTTL
203       mplsTopLabelExp


  *   What about IPFIX  SRv6 support?

Good point. draft-patki-srv6-ipfix-00 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patki-srv6-ipfix-00) is covering the IPv6 data plane in IPFIX. SrSidType in draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type relates to MPLS-SR and SRv6, IE46 only to MPLS-SR.

Best Wishes
Thomas

From: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 10:40 PM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Hi Thomas

Sorry for any misunderstanding.  I am well aware of the origins and history behind IPFIX and Neflow and use with BGP monitoring.

I was not aware of IE 46 and how that was being leveraged to support SR IGP extensions sid types.

After  reviewing your IPFIX slides related to IE 46 registry for mplsTopLabelType and this drafts solution to extend the IE 46 registry with SR and now requiring new IGP codepoints to be allocated.

You had given an example in the LDP interworking example or others that with this new IGP codepoint in case of multiple control planes present such as both LDP and SR that with IPFIX and with the new IGP codepoint allocations for each IGP type that you can see the forwarding resulting FIB entry.  I can see that as a benefit for monitoring telemetry

In-line  below addresses complexity of extending IE46 for SR support.

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 3:13 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:













Hi Gyan,



Gyan> IPFIX has been traditionally been used for flow analysis and to that end all that was required is support of the data plane encapsulation.  With your proposed SR support idea you are really transforming the IPFIX

to be used for not just flow monitoring at that level solely, but now also to analyze and troubleshoot data plane forwarding.  That is a considerable departure I think from what IPFIX was intended.  I am not sure we want to add that layer of complexity into

IPFIX.



Thomas> I have seen your feedback to Tarek and was puzzled about your remark about data plane encapsulation and IPFIX. I think you have a limited picture for what IPFIX has been intended and being used. I do not want

to lecture, but it might be useful to go back to the origins of Netflow and IPFIX. At the beginning, the main reason for was to account traffic for BGP control-plane dimensions. Such as BGP peer AS, src and dst prefix attribute. These helped to account traffic

in shared enviroments. Later also for datacenters. These was and is always in conjunction with the encapsulated header metrics of forwarded traffic and device dimensions such as ingress interface, egress interface, vrf id and vrf name. In order to have a proper

picture about the forwarding plane, and to enable data correlation, key fields from other perspectives (control-plane, forwarding-plane, device) are necessary to enable data correlation with other protocols such as BMP and YANG.



Thomas> Going back to the initial conversation. Section 7.2 of RFC 5102

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5102#section-7.2<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc5102%23section-7.2&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894565532&sdata=0ZmtjaUiYX6IitB5ENQnQTmHa2ff8jEybu2uvbbOnhg%3D&reserved=0>



   For ensuring extensibility of this information, IANA has created a

   new registry for MPLS label types and filled it with the initial list

   from the description Information Element #46, mplsTopLabelType.



Thomas> When IPFIX was specified, it has been defined in mind that other MPLS label protocols will be developed in the future. Which is the case with RFC 8665, 8666, 8667 and 8669. All adding TLV's to carry segment routing

SID's. In the presentation I gave, I showed one of many vendors implemented IE46 and showing the wrong value. Event though the label protocol was IS-IS SR TLV, the value shown was LDP. This is not acceptable. When new protocols are developed, we at IETF must

ensure that they can be properly monitored. With IPFIX we have the proper protocol to do that. Even without modifications as section 4 in draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting mentioned:



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-01#section-4<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-01%23section-4&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894565532&sdata=al%2FAn5tWLYadyWEHXDTrxoLYIjjDNpnElGeUcf5D82M%3D&reserved=0>



Thomas> You have been referring to complexity. One of the key objectives of SR-MPLS was that it does not much change in the MPLS data plane. You need to explain on this WG how SR differs from other MPLS label protocols

in terms of RIB/FIB. And then from there why an implementation would be difficult. That's the discussion I am looking forward to.

Gyan> SR-MPLS reuses the MPLS data plane so from that  perspective is the same but how it differs is with SR steering and MSD SID depth with SR-TE especially when strict ERO is defined with adjacency SID the label stack is expanded.

    With MPLS we are label swapping however with SR you are label stacking.  So let's say you have an SR-TE path instantiated and using the strict ERO path with adjacency SIDs defined,  would just the active label being used in the forwarding plane be the one that IPFIX would be monitoring versus the entire stack of labels.
In theory it appears that the IPFIX machinery is in place with IE 46 to support SR as what you have proposed in the draft.

    As far as vendor compatibility as long as they         support IE 46 they should support SR-MPLS.

I don't see any issues now as far as complexities to support as the we are using existing machinery IPFIX IE 46 to extend for SR support.

I think getting feedback from LSR is critical on their thoughts on complexity and caveats with getting the codepoints assigned.

What about IPFIX  SRv6 support?

Comment on Section 2


   A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane
   migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF.  By looking at the MPLS label
   value itself, it is not always clear as to which label protocol it
   belongs, since they could potentially share the same label allocation
   range.  This is the case for IGP-Adjacency SID's and LDP as an
   example.

SR SRGB label range is different then LDP label range.


Best wishes

Thomas



From: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>




Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 9:26 PM


To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>


Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type










Hi Thomas







Responses in-line








On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 2:02 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:















































Hi Ketan,













  *

This helps identification of specific SR-MPLS segment types as well as differentiating them from LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.







To be precise, the existing MPLS Label Type identifier differentiates from LDP, RSVP-TE.

Not the new SrSidType IPFIX IE being proposed.













  *

What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if the SR Prefix SID was being signalled via OSPF or ISIS?







It is important to distinguish between intend and result.







If you migrate from one label distribution protocol to another, a network operator

want's to understand if the data plane is still forwarding





packets with the label distribution protocol which needs to be removed or not. IE46 enables that by looking at the result of the forwarded traffic and not at the intend. RFC 8661 section 3,





https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8661#section-3<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8661%23section-3&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894575491&sdata=H1SkAcsjcQGOzoXQNCLL4FYqszkw%2FD8PUxFsmm3s08M%3D&reserved=0>,





describes the context.






Gyan> IPFIX has been traditionally been used for flow analysis and to that end all that was required is support of the data plane encapsulation.  With your proposed SR support idea you are really transforming the IPFIX to be used for not

just flow monitoring at that level solely, but now also to analyze and troubleshoot data plane forwarding.  That is a considerable departure I think from what IPFIX was intended.







I am not sure we want to add that layer of complexity into IPFIX.






















  *

What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if it was a Adjacency SID or a LAN Adjacency SID?







Quote from RFC8402. "Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm".

Means that not the routing protocol does all the forwarding





decisions, the node can change the forwarding by pushing additional labels.. With IPFIX SrSidType we are able to cover this dimension in IPFIX. Enabling to analyze the result of this decision. The example with " Adjacency SID or a LAN Adjacency SID" is not





very useful because the difference of the two is the topology among the adjacency. If you compare " Adjacency SID with Prefix SID", that makes much more sense. Since it describes that a particular adjacency is chosen to forward the packet instead of a prefix.





If IE 89, ForwardingStatus is drop, we understand that result of that decision lead to the drop and this enables to narrow down forwarding issues in segment routing networks more efficiently and quickly.








>





am asking for WG to weigh the implementation complexities







For the WG and me, I would be important if you can describe more detailed what you mean

with





implementation complexities. I would like to have a better understanding where your fear is coming from. I would appreciate if you could differentiate between





MPLS Label Type identifier, IE46, from which label protocol the label was coming from and SrSidType which SID type was used.











Best wishes



Thomas













From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>














Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:09 AM








To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type













Hi Thomas,







I should have been more clear in my email.







The proposal/suggestion is to add the following to the IPFIX MPLS Label type identifier registry:









  *

SR Prefix SID
  *

SR Adjacency SID
  *

SR Binding SID
  *

SR BGP Peering SID
  *

... and so on







This helps identification of specific SR-MPLS segment types as well as differentiating them from LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.







And my questions were:









  1.

What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if the SR Prefix SID was being signalled via OSPF or ISIS?
  2.

What value is provided for IPFIX analysis if it was a Adjacency SID or a LAN Adjacency SID?







I am asking for WG to weigh the implementation complexities and overheads with the proposed details of SR-MPLS segments in IPFIX against the benefit (if any)

that they provide for the





flow analysis and monitoring.







Thanks,



Ketan













From:







[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>














Sent: 15 August 2020 09:40








To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;





[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;







[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type













Hi Ketan,







Thank you very much for the review and feedback.













  *

What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS





- what matters and is more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly any deployments would be running multiple protocols and learning the same prefix from different IGPs.







As Jeff already pointed out. Multiple IGP labelling protocols are used  in networks when migrations

are ongoing. Usually in a life cycle. Migrating from





LDP to OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS SR TLV. This is/was also the case at Swisscom when we first discovered this shortcoming in vendor implementations. The key point here, with these additional IPFIX MPLS Label Type identifiers we enable the possibility to verify the





label protocol migration without taking the label value into the consideration.













  *

IPFIX may be picking this information from a FIB in some implementation where the protocol does not matter and this information





is not available therein.







I am not sure if you have seen the presentation in IETF 108 at OPSAWG and SPRING.



https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-opsawg-export-of-mpls-sr-label-type-information-in-ipfix-00.pdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-opsawg-export-of-mpls-sr-label-type-information-in-ipfix-00.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894575491&sdata=KiNpnuG0%2B%2BwsLcK92lwaIHf1DzQEU0QdF6uU3KjyEzI%3D&reserved=0>







Slide 2 shows Cisco as example vendor which implemented IE 46, MPLS Label Type identifier. There

is an open ddts where vendor feasibility has been clarified.





Ping me off the list when you like to have more details.







I do understand your point that not all the vendors are capable to implement IE 46.

But that's not the point about the IPFIX IE registry.





The IE registry enables that an IPFIX implementation can refer to the right code point. With RFC 5102 the decision has been made that MPLS Label Type identifier make sense





and can be implemented. draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type just extends the IE 46 registry with the Segment Routing label protocol code points so when OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS SR TLV is used, and IE 46 is supported, the IPFIX implementation can point to the right





code point.













  *

On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and IGP - what would we use/show?







In this case the IE 46 shows the label protocol which was used to program the FIB.













  *







For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in some cases not possible to different between Prefix and Node and Anycast SID. Many of these types are control plane elements and we can





be sure more get added.







I fully agree. As a network operator its still hard to understand the architecture

and constraints within a router. When monitoring capabilities





are discussed at IETF, this is the usual topic. What is possible, what make sense. By purpose, all available SID types are listed in the draft. This with the aim to start the discussion in the working groups what is possible what makes sense. I would be interested





to get your and also Jeff's feedback.







In above mentioned slides I described how TI-LFA application would benefit of visibility

in the FIB by showing where Adj-SID was used. This





should be a simple example why it make sense not only to look at which label protocol was used to forward a particular packet, but also which SID type to further understand the intend why this label is being pushed.







I hope this makes all sense. Looking forward for reply.







Best wishes



Thomas













From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>














Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 7:35 PM








To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;





[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>








Subject: RE: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type













< also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs >







Hi Thomas/All,







I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective.







What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS - what matters and is more important

is that it is a





Prefix SID. Hardly any deployments would be running multiple protocols and learning the same prefix from different IGPs. IPFIX may be picking this information from a FIB in some implementation where the protocol does not matter and this information is not





available therein.







On some nodes, the same Prefix SID may be learnt via both BGP and IGP - what would we use/show?







I would recommend using SR Prefix SID, SR Adjacency SID, SR Binding SID, SR BGP Peering SID and so on ... for the MPLS Label Type.







This also takes away the need for the second table that is being proposed to a large extent. For that table proposal, it is very difficult and in some cases not

possible to different





between Prefix and Node and Anycast SID. Many of these types are control plane elements and we can be sure more get added. Is there really much value in differentiation between say an Adjacency SID and LAN Adjacency SID?







Could we evaluate the implementation overhead and complexity of this level of categorization/information in IPFIX against their value in flow analysis to perhaps

consider a middle ground?







Thanks,



Ketan













From: Lsr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>





On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Sent: 31 July 2020 20:52








To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type













Hi Hannes,







Thanks a lot for the feedback. Yes, makes completely sense. Will take it for the

next update...







Best Wishes



Thomas























From: Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>














Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:31 AM








To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>








Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type













Thomas,
















I have one comment/suggestion to Paragraph 4 (IANA Considerations).



















Please add also a code point for BGP Prefix-SID - it's quite popular in DC deployments.













https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc8669<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8669&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894585445&sdata=RSQfUDhZODLkiHQW1oAe3XE46DxPpNzJx3Hadir9%2F44%3D&reserved=0>



















thanks,



















/hannes






















On 28.07.2020, at 10:11,







[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
















Dear lsr,



















I presented the following draft



















Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)









https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894585445&sdata=NRvPTvxaDXGyKQv6yHqq4fmJAgNngC8JcAsUcNZhiLE%3D&reserved=0>



















at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday









https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fproceedings%2F108%2Fslides%2Fslides-108-spring-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-00.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894595406&sdata=9rMXDuB2WnQMV9ZyzSnoFAsk8zN5k%2BJdAvUtcbVHoQg%3D&reserved=0>



















and today at OPSAWG where I call for adoption.



















This draft adds additional segment routing code points for in the IANA IPFIX registry for IS-IS,

OPSFv2 and OPSF v3 and segment routing SID types to gain





further insights into the MPLS-SR forwarding-plane.



















I have been asked to not only gather feedback from spring and opsawg but also from lsr and mpls

working groups since these code points are related to link





state routing protocols and mpls data plane.



















I am looking forward to your feedback and input.



















Best Wishes









Thomas Graf






_______________________________________________








Lsr mailing list








[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>








https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894595406&sdata=7qJbaz0tefDgrw1yubQrnpZh2DIiQdIInyVhVBIpPaI%3D&reserved=0>



































_______________________________________________





OPSAWG mailing list





[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>





https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopsawg&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894595406&sdata=jphAmvQU51PoiIut6am4VWS0WONmUSQpK4RqughuYVY%3D&reserved=0>







--











[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894605358&sdata=eYXRGm6VJOWrRYHuAIpti5I6SdVLkQbQqtkvZAnNRtQ%3D&reserved=0>


Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect


M 301 502-1347


13101 Columbia Pike<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894605358&sdata=GlMv8EhLDGZ%2BUtc%2B9%2F561r6A21Ez1Nd%2B5VW71TcIusQ%3D&reserved=0>


Silver Spring, MD<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894615316&sdata=ZxfQNW%2Fx3g%2FOm3SbeY%2BfKHqsr2J%2FXoaPlAbLtVgB%2B7E%3D&reserved=0>



<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894615316&sdata=ZxfQNW%2Fx3g%2FOm3SbeY%2BfKHqsr2J%2FXoaPlAbLtVgB%2B7E%3D&reserved=0>
















--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C61f6ea640e8744da5a2908d842248435%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637332071894615316&sdata=YM6e2JFcGiqA022a6AgodPJ39L%2Fi4TyTGz7kOBcX1ko%3D&reserved=0>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

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