Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service != Realization

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Reading through this thread again I had some thoughts related to IETF
network slicing and what differentiates IETF network slicing from IETF
technology that exit today as well as the in past decades that has been
able to provide network slicing capabilities but not the realization of an
“IETF Network Slice”.

If we are not creating a significant  enhancements to a customer SLA with
IETF network slicing for 5G, and if we say that what exists today with
current and past IETF technologies fits the bill by making a very broad
generalization about what IETF network slicing is, then it makes me
question if we will be able to meet the requirements of 5G.

We should not forget that the concept of network slicing has gained
traction and has been driven largely by 5G and as well has expanded beyond
5G for an Enhanced VPN service delivery use cases.

We still have to be able to meet the expectations and be able to deliver
enhanced SLA requirements for 5G services.  We should lower the bar or
generalize what constitutes an IETF network slice.

The main difference in what has existed in the past as well as current
technologies including Segment Routing and Flex Algo is the concept of
being able to provision subset of underlay resources realization of an NRP
or multiple NRPs that now constitute an network slice with some degree of
path isolation.

Path isolation has existed as well with steering mechanisms  RSVP-TE, ACTN
 to realize a network slice and even now in recent with Segment Routing and
Flex Algo low latency sub topology constraint based network slicing.  As
well as QOS differential services  which has been the Service Provider
hallmark  for value added tiered classes of service which has existed for
decades to provide network slicing based on differential service.

Overall what I believe  has not existed in the past is the concept of being
able to provisioning a subset of underlay resources that constitutes an NRP
which is the building block of the underlay network slice that provides the
underpinning for Enhanced VPN services for 5G and other use cases.

Underlay resource provisioning is the key ingredient and the value add that
has been missing that the NSC will now be able to provide the enhanced SLA
for 5G services to realize IETF network slice.

Thoughts??

Gyan

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 9:54 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2022 10:52 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>; adrian <[e-mail]>; mohamed.boucadair <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* teas <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Comment inline.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2022 10:40 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>; adrian <[e-mail]>; mohamed.boucadair <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* teas <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:50 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>; adrian <[e-mail]>; mohamed.boucadair <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* teas <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Comment inline.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:52 PM
> *To:* Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>; John E Drake <
> [e-mail]>; adrian <[e-mail]>; mohamed.boucadair <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* teas <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof and all,
>
>
>
> Most of this text looks good to me except the last sentence. "A single NRP
> with the resources of the entire underlay network" is the same as a network
> without network resource partition. I think we agreed that an NRP refers to
> a subset of the underlay network resources (e.g. a subset of the
> buffer/queueing/scheduling resources), thus it is different from the whole
> underlay network.
>
>
>
> *[JD]  A subset can consist of the entire set *
>
>
>
> [Jie] Maybe this is true in general, while I’m not sure such
> generalization is helpful in the context of network slicing. Do you
> consider the whole physical underlay network can be called an NRP?
>
>
>
> *[JD]  Absolutely*
>
>
>
> [Jie #2] Fine, then we could also generalize that network slicing is
> already supported in legacy networks for yearsJ
>
>
>
>
>
> That said, an NRP may have the same topology as the underlay network.
>
>
>
> IMO we need to keep in mind that resource and topology are two separate
> attributes of an NRP.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
> *发件人：*Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
>
> *收件人：*Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>;John E Drake <
> [e-mail]>;adrian <[e-mail]>;mohamed.boucadair <
> [e-mail]>
>
> *抄 **送：*teas <[e-mail]>
>
> *时 **间：*2022-05-19 03:16:57
>
> *主 **题：*Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service !=
> Realization
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> So, do we have agreement for following change:
>
>
>
>
>
>           An NRP is simply a collection of resources identified in the
> underlay network. The amount and granularity of resources allocated in
> different portions of an NRP can be flexible. Depends on the operator’s
> policy and the service requirements, some NRP realizations may build the
> NRPs with dedicated topologies, while some other realizations may allow
> shared topology for multiple NRPs, one possible case is that the entire
> underlay network topology is used by all the NRPs. Some realization might
> as well use single NRP only with the resources of the entire underlay
> network topology.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-29, at 14:57, Krzysztof Szarkowicz < [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So,
>
>
>
> Are we OK now? From my perspective it look good.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-28, at 16:58, John E Drake < [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> And I think it’s incorrect
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:*  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2022 10:57 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; <[e-mail]> <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> The sentence you quoted was the last sentence in Krzysztof ‘s proposal,
> and I just reused it in my proposed text:
>
>
>
> “… where the entire underlay network topology is used by all NRPs.”
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:*  John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2022 8:28 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; <[e-mail]> <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> The text that I thought was incorrect: “, one possible case is that the
> entire underlay network topology is used by all the NRPs.”
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:*  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:56 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; <[e-mail]> <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> My understanding is that when NRP is introduced to the network for
> supporting IETF network slices, there would be at least two NRPs. Only one
> NRP with the entire underlay network topology would be same thing as the
> underlay network, do we need to call it an NRP?
>
>
>
> Besides, the text I proposed is general and can even apply to the “one
> NRP” case you mentioned.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:*  John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2022 9:15 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; <[e-mail]> <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I don’t think the text identified with [jie#4} is correct, because in the
> limiting case there is only one NRP and it consists of the entire underlay
> network topology. I think this was what Krzysztof and Med were noting, and
> adding a simple statement of this in the Framework draft would make sense.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:*  Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2022 5:52 AM
> *To:* Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Please see inline [Jie #4]:
>
>
>
> *From:*  Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:47 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
>
>
> Please see inline [Krzysztof #3]
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-26, at 05:18, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Please see inline [Jie #3]:
>
>
>
> *From:*   Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2022 4:58 AM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:*  John E Drake < [e-mail]>;   [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> < [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:*  Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
> Please see inline [Krzysztof #2]
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-21, at 09:41, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Please see inline with [Jie #2]:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*   Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:23 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:*  John E Drake < [e-mail]>;   [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> < [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:*  Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-20, at 10:31, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Please see some replies inline:
>
>
>
> *From:*   Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:17 AM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:*  John E Drake < [e-mail]>;   [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> < [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:*  Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
> I still see tight coupling between NRP and the topology. There will be
> realizations that do not use topology filtering (i.e, multiple NRPs use the
> same topology -> potentially entire network), so I am not sure, why
> realization with coupling between topology and NRP is so emphasized, while
> other realizations are not.
>
>
>
> [Jie] Totally agree that multiple NRPs can share the same topology, and as
> you said one extreme case is that the NRPs are created using the base
> topology of the network. While in any of these cases, an NRP needs to be
> associated with a topology to determine the set of links and nodes involved
> for resource management/reservation and path computation of the NRP.
>
>
>
> That said, I agree that topology filtering is just one optional approach
> to determine the topology of the NRP, and may not need to be highlighted in
> the text.
>
>
>
> What about following text (or something like that):
>
>
>
>
>
>     An NRP is simply a collection of resources identified in the underlay
> network. The details about tracked resources might depend on NRP
> realization. Some NRP realizations might put more focus on transport access
> resources, while some other NRP realizations might focus on transport core,
> or both transport access and transport core resources. Furthermore, some
> NRP realizations might build on tight coupling of an NRP with underlying
> filtered topology, while some other NRP realizations might not use separate
> filtered topologies at all. The framework is open for different NRP
> realizations, but the details of these realizations are out of scope for
> this document.
>
>
>
> [Jie] I’m not sure whether it is needed to mention access/core as they are
> only applicable to specific network types. And the term transport has been
> proved controversial in the past.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] I am OK to change the terms for something different, to be
> more technology agnostic. What I would like to see as the outcome of the
> framework document is, that different NRP realizations might have different
> focus on then granularity of resource tracking in different part of the
> underlay network. I.e.,  as a simple example, in case of packet switched
> network as the underlay technology, realizing e.g. P2P service slice might
> be achieved by kind of converting the packet switched network to circuit
> switched network (with granular tracking of resources across the entire
> path used for service delivery), but some other realization of such P2P
> service might only track the resources with high granularity at the access
> (AC), and use other techniques in other parts of the network to realize the
> service.
>
>
>
> I see the framework document should address that, without calling any
> technology details.
>
>
>
> [Jie #2] I can understand your point that the amount and granularity of
> resource management/reservation (I guess it is what your called resource
> tracking) for an NRP does not have to be the same everywhere, aggregation
> or sharing with certain criteria could be allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof #2] Indeed. Moreother, some NRP realizations might focus (=more
> granular resource management/reservation) in part ‘X’ of the network,
> while less granular in part Y, whole some other NRP realization just to the
> opposite - more granular in part Y, while less granular in part X. I see
> this should be somehow captured in the framework.
>
>
>
> [Jie #3] I think there could some text about the different granularity of
> resources for NRPs.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof #3] I proposed some text regarding to this referring to ’transport
> access’ and ’transport core’. You didn’t liked this terms. So, can you
> propose some text?
>
>
>
> [Jie #4] How about some text like this:
>
>
>
>          An NRP is simply a collection of resources identified in the
> underlay network. The amount and granularity of resources allocated in
> different portions of an NRP can be flexible. Depends on the operator’s
> policy and the service requirements, some NRP realizations may build the
> NRPs with dedicated topologies, while some other realizations may allow
> shared topology for multiple NRPs, one possible case is that the entire
> underlay network topology is used by all the NRPs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regarding the relationship between NRP and topology, here is my suggested
> text:
>
>
>
>               Depends on the operator’s policy and the service
> requirements, some NRP realizations may build the NRPs with dedicated
> topologies, while some other realizations may use shared topology for
> multiple NRPs, one extreme of which is to use the entire underlay network
> topology for the NRPs.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof] What about following text:
>
>
>
>     Depends on the operator’s policy and the service requirements, some
> NRP realizations may build the NRPs with dedicated topologies, while some
> other realizations may use shared topology for multiple NRPs. Some
> realizations might even not use NRP topology differentiation at all, where
> the entire underlay network topology is used by all NRPs.
>
>
>
> [Jie #2] I see we are converging on this. The remaining small difference
> is whether all NRPs built on the entire underlay network topology can be
> seen as a special case of “multiple NRPs sharing the same topology”.
>
>
>
> The main point of this text is an NRP is associated with a topology, which
> can be either a dedicated topology or a shared topology, and can be either
> a sub-topology or the entire underlay network topology.
>
>
>
> Thus I’d prefer an description with enough generality, then the special
> case could be described under the general statement. What do you think?
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof #2] I am nart sure, what text are you proposing.
>
>
>
> [Jie #3] The generic text I propose is similar to what is in my previous
> mail:
>
>
>
> Depends on the operator’s policy and the service requirements, some NRP
> realizations may build the NRPs with dedicated topologies, while some other
> realizations may allow shared topology for multiple NRPs, one extreme case
> is that the entire underlay network topology is used by all the NRPs.
>
>
>
> [Krzysztof #3] What is ‘extreme’ for one realization, can be considered as
>  ’normal’ (default) for another realization. So, my proposed text was
> avoiding such verbiage.
>
>
>
> [Jie #4] In my understanding, “each NRP with separated topologies” and
> “all NRPs with the same topology” are the two extremes of the solution
> space. And please see the modified text in reply to your last comment.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Please note that using shared topology for multiple NRPs is considered as
> one optimization approach in draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-18, at 12:18, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your reply. Please see some further inline with [Jie]:
>
>
>
> *From:*   Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2022 3:01 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:*  John E Drake < [e-mail]>;   [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> < [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:*  Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
> Thank you for fast response.
>
>
>
> I fully agree with you, that the realization is the combination of various
> techniques, and in particular realization, there could be more focus on
> some technique ‘A’, while in some other realization there could be some
> more focus on technique ‘B’. And, the framework should be open for
> different realizations.
>
>
>
> [Jie] Agree the framework should be open to different realizations, and
> this is my understanding about the NRP description in the framework draft.
>
>
>
> I have re-read section 6.1, I am still confused with the first paragraph
> on page 30, which says:
>
>
>
>  An NRP is simply a collection of resources identified in the underlay
>
>  network.  Thus, the NRP is a scoped view of a topology and may be
>
>  considered as a topology in its own right.  The process of
>
>  determining the NRP may be made easier if the underlay network
>
>  topology is first filtered into a Filter Topology in order to be
>
>  aware of the subset of network resources that are suitable for
>
>  specific NRPs, but this is optional.
>
>
>
> It is very tight coupling between NRP and the topology. IMHO, is some
> realizations this tight coupling might be true, I’m some realizations it
> might not be true. This paragraph is most distracting for me.
>
>
>
> [Jie] My understanding about the topology here is that it is a generic
> term used to represent the set of network nodes and links that belong to
> the NRP, it does not constrain any mechanism to build or select the
> topology.
>
>
>
> But I agree the text could be improved. My suggestion is something like:
>
>
>
>      An NRP is simply a collection of resource identified in the underlay
> network. The set of nodes and links belonging to the NRP provide the scoped
> view of a topology, and the NRP may be considered as a topology in its own
> right.
>
>
>
> The rest text about filter topology (or call it sub-topology) is
> considered optional and I’m fine to either remove it or keep it.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2022 -Apr-15, at 07:00, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
> Yes NRP is a concept introduced for the realization of IETF network slice,
> and it is the result of long time WG discussion about the terminology for
> the underlay network construct which is used to support the IETF network
> slice services. My personal understanding is that the NRP concept and
> definition belongs to the framework document, while the technologies used
> to instantiate NRP are out of its scope. For sure there can be multiple
> ways to build an NRP, as long as they comply to the NRP definition in the
> framework.
>
>
>
> I understand your concern is whether the framework mandates only one or
> two mechanisms to build NRP, I don’t think this is what the current
> framework indicates. Thus to me the examples about detailed realization
> mechanisms are not quite necessary for the framework document and may
> contradict with its role as a high-level framework.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, discussion about the possible mechanisms to build NRPs
> can continue in the WG.
>
>
>
> To me an NRP is usually realized with the combination of a set of data
> plane and control plane technologies. Constrained path computation or
> Flex-Algo can only be seen as a component rather than a complete solution.
> As you mentioned, one or multiple technologies such as admission
> control/advanced or basic QoS/capacity planning/resource reservation either
> on the edge nodes or the transit nodes would be needed, and the mechanisms
> can have specific applicability to different network applications.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:*   Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2022 9:00 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:*  John E Drake < [e-mail]>;   [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> < [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:*  Re: [Teas] [E] Re: Slicing Framework Open issue #1 : Service
> != Realization
>
>
>
> Hi Jie,
>
>
>
> I agree, NRP is a realization, and a such, my initial comments (few weeks
> ago) was that it should not be mentioned at all in the framework document,
> but should be left to the documents describing the realization.
>
>
>
> If, however, NRP is mandated by the framework document for realization,
> the wording for NRP in the framework document should be wide enough, to
> allow different realization options (described in different realization
> documents). For example, realization option mentioned by Med:
>
>
>
> * admission control with advanced QoS (large number of edge QoS classes)
> at the transport edge
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*