Internet DRAFT - draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers
draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers
ICCRG Working Group O. Bonaventure
Internet-Draft M. Piraux
Intended status: Experimental Q. De Coninck
Expires: 28 April 2022 UCLouvain
M. Baerts
Tessares
C. Paasch
Apple
M. Amend
Deutsche Telekom
25 October 2021
Multipath schedulers
draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers-02
Abstract
This document proposes a series of abstract packet schedulers for
multipath transport protocols equipped with a congestion controller.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. An abstract multipath transport protocol . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Packet scheduling challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Packet schedulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Round-Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Weighted Round-Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Strict Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Round-Trip-Time Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Lowest Round-Trip-Time First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Combination of schedulers type: Priority and Lowest
round-trip-time first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Since draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers-00 . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The Internet was designed under the implicit assumption that hosts
are equipped with a single network interface while routers are
equipped with several ones. Under this assumption, an Internet host
is usually identified by the IP address of its network interface.
This assumption does not hold anymore today for two reasons. First,
a growing fraction of the Internet hosts are equipped with several
network interfaces, usually through different datalink networks.
These multihomed hosts are reachable via different IP addresses.
Second, a growing fraction of the hosts that are attached through a
single network interface are dual-stack and are thus reachable over
both IPv4 and IPv6.
Several Internet transport protocols have been extended to leverage
the different paths that are exposed on such hosts: Multipath TCP
[RFC6824], the load sharing extensions to SCTP
[I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath], Multipath DCCP
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp] and Multipath QUIC
[I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]. These multipath transport protocols
differ in the way they are organized and exchange control information
and user data. However, they all include algorithms to handle three
problems that any multipath transport protocol needs to solve:
* Congestion controller
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
* Path manager
* Packet scheduler
* Packet re-assembly
From a congestion control viewpoint, the main concern for a multipath
transport protocol is that a multipath connection should not be
unfair to single-path transport connections that share a common
bottleneck. This problem can be solved by coupling the congestion
windows of the different paths. The solution proposed in [RFC6356]
is applicable to any transport protocol. Beside providing fairness,
congestion control can also be a valuable input for different kind of
traffic distribution algorithm within a packet scheduler. Typically
metrics like RTT and available capacity can be derived.
A multipath transport protocol uses different flows during the
lifetime of a connection. The Path Manager contains the logic that
regulates the creation/deletion of these flows. This logic usually
depends on the requirements of the application that uses the
multipath transport. Some applications use multipath in failover
situations. In this case, the connection can use one path and the
path manager can create another path when the primary one fails. An
application that wishes to share its load among different paths can
request the path manager to establish different paths in order to
simultaneously use them during the connection. Many path managers
have been proposed in the literature [CONEXT15], but these are
outside the scope of this document.
The packet scheduler is the generic term for the algorithm that
selects the path that will be used to transmit each packet on a
multipath connection. This logic is obviously only useful when there
are at least two active paths for a given multipath transport
connection. A variety of packet schedulers have been proposed in the
literature [ACMCS14] and implemented in multipath transport
protocols. Experience with multipath transport protocols shows that
the packet scheduler can have a huge impact on the performance
achieved by such protocols.
Packet re-assembly or re-ordering in multipath transport has the
functionality to equalize the effect of packet scheduling across
paths with different characteristics and restore the original packet
order to a certain extent. Obviously, packet re-assembly is the
counterpart of packet scheduling and located at the far end of the
multipath transport. However, packet scheduling schemes exists which
render the re-assembly superfluous or lowering at least its effort.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
In this document, we document a series of multipath packet schedulers
that are known to provide performance that matches well the
requirements of specific applications. To describe these packet
schedulers, we assume an abstract transport that is briefly presented
in Section 2. In Section 3 we describe the challenges and
constraints around a multipath scheduler. Finally, we describe the
different schedulers in Section 4. To keep the description as simple
and intuitive as possible, we assume here multipath connections that
are composed of two paths, a frequent deployment scenario for
multipath transport. This does not restrict the proposed schedulers
to using only two paths. Implementations are encouraged to support
more than 2 paths. We leave the discussion on how to adapt these
abstract schedulers to concrete multipath transport protocols in
future drafts.
2. An abstract multipath transport protocol
For simplicity, we assume a multipath transport protocol which can
send packets over different paths. Some protocols such as Multipath
TCP [RFC6824] support active and backup paths. We do not assume this
in this document and leave the impact of these active/backup paths in
specific documents.
Furthermore, we assume that there are exactly two active paths for
the presentation of the packet schedulers. We consider that a path
is active as long as it supports the transmission of packets.
Meaning, A Multipath TCP subflow TCP segment with the FIN or RST
flags set is not considered as an active path. Other constraints are
possible on whether or not a path is active. These are specific to
the scheduler and vary depending on the goal of the scheduler. An
example of these is that when a path has experienced a certain number
N of retransmission timeouts, the path can be considered inactive.
We assume that the transport protocol maintains one congestion
controller per path as in [RFC6356]. We do not assume a specific
congestion controller, but assume that it can be queried by the
packet scheduler to verify whether a packet of length l would be
blocked or not by the congestion control scheme. A window-based
congestion controller such as [RFC6356] can block a packet from being
transmitted for some time when its congestion window is full. The
same applies to a rate-based congestion controller although the
latter could indicate when the packet could be accepted while the
former cannot.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
We assume that the multipath transport protocol maintains some state
at the connection level and at the path level. On both level, the
multipath transport protocol will maintain send and receive windows,
and a Maximum Segment Size that is negotiated at connection
establishment.
It may also contain some information that is specific to the
application (e.g. total amount of data sent or received) and
information about non-active flows. At the path level, we expect
that the multipath transport protocol will maintain an accurate
estimation of the round-trip-time over that path, possibly a send/
receive window, per path MTU information, the state of the congestion
controller, and optionally information that is specific to the
application or the packet scheduler (e.g. priority for one path over
another one).
3. Packet scheduling challenges
Packet scheduling tries to balance different quality of service goals
with different constraints of the paths. The balance depends on
which of the goals or constraints is the primary factor for the
experience the application is aiming for. In the following we list
these goals and constraints and conclude by how they can influence
each other.
Each path can be subject to a different cost when transmitting data.
For example, a path can introduce a per-byte monetary cost for the
transmission (e.g., metered cellular link). Another cost can be the
power consumption when transmitting or receiving data. These costs
are imposing restrictions on when a path can be used compared to the
lower-cost path.
A goal for many applications is to reduce the latency of their
transaction. With multiple paths, each path can have a significantly
different latency compared to the other paths. It is thus crucial to
schedule the traffic on a path such that the latency requirements of
the application are satisfied.
Achieving high throughput is another goal of many applications.
Streaming applications often require a minimum bit rate to sustain
playback. The scheduler should try to achieve this bit rate to allow
for a flawless streaming experience. Beyond that, adaptive streaming
requires also a more stable throughput experience to ensure that the
bit rate of the video stream is consistent. When sending traffic
over multiple paths the bit rate can experience more variance and
thus the scheduler for such a streaming application needs to take
precautions to ensure a smooth experience.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
Finally, transport protocols impose a receive-window that signals to
the sender how much data the application is willing to receive. When
the paths have a large latency difference, a multipath transport can
quickly become receive-window limited. This limitation comes from
the fact that a packet might have been sent on a high-latency path.
If the transport imposes in-order delivery of the data, the receiver
needs to wait to receive this packet over the high-latency path
before providing it to the application. The sender will thus become
receive-window limited and may end up under-utilizing the low-latency
path. This can become a major challenge when trying to achieve high
throughput.
All of these quality of service goals and constraints need to be
balanced against each other. A scheduler might decide to trade
latency for higher throughput. Or reduce the throughput with the
goal of reducing the cost.
4. Packet schedulers
The packet scheduler is executed every time a packet needs to be
transmitted by the multipath transport protocol. A packet scheduler
can consider three different types of packets:
* packets that carry new user data
* packets that carry previously transmitted user data
* packets that only carry control information (e.g.,
acknowledgements, address advertisements)
In Multipath TCP, the packet scheduler is only used for packets that
carry data. Multipath TCP will typically return acknowledgements on
the same path as the one over which data packets were received. For
Multipath QUIC, the situation is different since Multipath QUIC can
acknowledge over one path data that was previously received over
another path. In Multipath TCP, this is only partially possible.
The subflow level acknowledgements must be sent on the subflow where
the data was received while the data-level acknowledgements can be
sent over any subflow.
This document uses the Python language to represent multipath
schedulers. A multipath scheduler is represented as a Python
function. This function takes the length of the next packet to
schedule as argument and returns the path on which it will be send.
A path is represented as a Python class with the following
attributes:
* srtt: The smoothed RTT of the path [RFC6298].
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
* cc_state: The state of the congestion controller, i.e. either
slow_start, congestion_avoidance or recovery.
* blocked(l): A function indicating whether a packet of length l
would be rejected by the congestion controller.
The schedulers presented can be executed in a simulator
[MultipathSim] implementing the abstract multipath protocol presented
in Section 2. It can be used to simulate a file transfer between a
client and a server over multiple paths.
4.1. Round-Robin
We use the Round-Robin scheduler as a simple example to illustrate
how a packet scheduler can be specified, but we do not recommend its
usage. Experiments with Multipath TCP [ACMCS14] indicate that it
does not provide good performance.
This packet scheduler uses one additional state at the connection
level: last_path. This stores the identifier of the last path that
was used to send a packet. The scheduler is defined by the code
shown in Figure 1.
class RoundRobin(Scheduler):
""" Chooses an available path in a round-robin manner. """
last_path: Optional[Path] = None
def schedule(self, packet_len: int):
if self.last_path in self.paths:
next_idx = self.paths.index(self.last_path) + 1
else:
next_idx = 0
sorted_paths = self.paths[next_idx:] + self.paths[:next_idx]
for p in sorted_paths:
if not p.blocked(packet_len):
self.last_path = p
return p
Figure 1: A simple Round Robin scheduler
This scheduler does not distinguish between the different types of
packets. It iterates over the available paths and sends over the
ones whose congestion window is open.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
4.2. Weighted Round-Robin
The Weighted Round-Robin scheduler is a more advanced version of the
Round-Robin scheduler. It allows specifying a particular
distribution of paths. This can be used to non-uniformly spread
packets over paths.
This packet scheduler adds two states:
* distribution: A list containing the distribution of paths to
consider. Paths to which more importance is given will be present
several times in the list. The ordering of the list allows to
choose whether interleaved or burst sending is preferred.
* last_idx: It stores the index in the distribution of the last path
used to send a packet.
class WeightedRoundRobin(Scheduler):
""" Chooses an available path in a following a fixed distribution. """
distribution: List[Path]
last_idx: int = -1
def schedule(self, packet_len: int) -> Optional[Path]:
next_idx = (self.last_idx + 1) % len(self.distribution)
sorted_paths = self.distribution[next_idx:]
+ self.distribution[:next_idx]
for i, p in enumerate(sorted_paths):
if not p.blocked(packet_len):
self.last_idx =
(self.last.idx + i) % len(self.distribution)
return p
Figure 2: A Weighted Round Robin scheduler
This scheduler does not distinguish between the different types of
packets. It iterates over the available paths following the given
distribution and sends over the ones whose congestion window is open.
A variant of this algorithm could maintain a deficit per path and
consider the length of packets when distributing them.
4.3. Strict Priority
The Strict Priority scheduler's aim is to select paths based on a
priority list. Some paths might go through networks that are more
expensive to use than others. Then the idea is to select the path
with the highest priority if it is available before looking at others
by priority. This scheduler is described by the code shown in
Figure 3.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
class StrictPriority(Scheduler):
""" Chooses the first available path in a priority list of paths. """
def schedule(self, packet_len: int):
for p in sorted(self.paths,
key=lambda p: p.priority, reverse=True):
if not p.blocked(packet_len):
return p
Figure 3: A simple Strict Priority scheduler
This scheduler can face performance issues if, compared to others,
paths with high priority accept a lot of data but delivered packets
with a high latency. When the path is experiencing bufferbloat, the
receiver has to store packets for a long time in its buffers to
ensure an in-order delivery. It is then recommended to cover these
cases in the scheduler implementation with the help of the congestion
control algorithm.
4.4. Round-Trip-Time Threshold
The Round-Trip-Time Threshold scheduler selects the first available
path with a smoothed round-trip-time below a certain threshold. The
goal is to keep the RTT of the multipath connection to a small value
and avoid having the whole connection impacted by "bad" paths. A
prototype is shown in Figure 4.
@dataclass
class RTTThreshold(Scheduler):
""" Chooses the first available path below a certain RTT threshold. """
threshold: float
def schedule(self, packet_len: int):
for p in self.paths:
if p.srtt < self.threshold and not p.blocked(packet_len):
return p
Figure 4: A simple Round-Trip-Time Threshold scheduler
This kind of protection can of course be added to other existing
schedulers.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
4.5. Lowest Round-Trip-Time First
The Lowest round-trip-time first scheduler's goal is to minimize
latency for short flows while at the same time achieving high
throughput for long flows [ACMCS14]. To handle the latency
differences across the paths when being limited by the receive-
window, this scheduler deploys a fast reinjection mechanism to
quickly recover from the head-of-line blocking.
At each round, the scheduler iterates over the list of paths that are
eligible for transmission. To decide whether or not a path is
eligible, a few conditions need to be satisfied:
* The congestion window needs to provide enough space for the
segment
* The path is not in fast-recovery or experiencing retransmission
timeouts
Among all the eligible paths, the scheduler will choose the path with
the lowest RTT and transmit the segment with the new data on that
path. Figure 5 illustrates a simple lowest RTT scheduler which does
not include fast reinjections.
class LowestRTTFirst(Scheduler):
""" Chooses the first available path with the lowest RTT. """
def schedule(self, packet_len: int):
# Sort paths by ascending SRTT
for p in sorted(self.paths, key=lambda path: path.srtt):
if not p.blocked(packet_len) \
and p.cc_state != 'recovery':
return p
Figure 5: A simple Lowest RTT First scheduler
To handle head-of-line blocking situations when the paths have a
large delay difference the scheduler uses a strategy of opportunistic
retransmission and path penalization as described in [NSDI12].
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
Opportunistic retransmission kicks in whenever a path is eligible for
transmission but the receive-window advertised by the receiver
prevents the sender from transmitting new data. In that case the
sender can transmit previously transmitted data over the eligible
path. To overcome the head-of-line blocking the sender will thus
transmit the packet at the head of the transmission queue over this
faster path (if it hasn't been transmitted on this particular path
yet). This packet has thus a chance to quickly reach the receiver
and fill the hole created by the head-of-line blocking.
Whenever the previously mentioned mechanism kicks in, it is and
indication that the path's round-trip-time is too high to allow the
path with the lower RTT to fully use its capacity. We thus should
reduce the transmission rate on this path. This mechanism is called
penalization and is achieved by dividing the congestion window by 2.
4.6. Combination of schedulers type: Priority and Lowest round-trip-
time first
Combining some types of schedulers can be a way to address some use
cases. For example, a scheduler using the priority and the round-
trip-time attributes can be used to give more priorities to some
links having a lower cost (e.g. fixed vs. mobile accesses) while
still being able to benefit from the advantages of the "Lowest RTT
First" scheduler described in Section 4.5. A prototype of this
"hybrid" scheduler is shown in Figure 6.
class PriorityAndLowestRTTFirst(Scheduler):
""" Chooses the first available path with """
""" the highest priority and then the lowest RTT. """
def schedule(self, packet_len: int):
# Sort paths by ascending priority (2nd sort)
# and then ascending SRTT (1st sort)
paths = sorted(self.paths, key=lambda path: path.srtt)
paths = sorted(paths, key=lambda path: path.priority, reverse=True)
for p in paths:
if not p.blocked(packet_len)
and p.cc.state is not CCState.recovery:
return p
Figure 6: A scheduler combining priority and RTT attributes
Combining some properties can have new undesired effects. In the
case presented here, paths with a higher priority but also a higher
RTT can affect performances compared to a setup having a scheduler
not looking at the priority but only the round-trip-time. If paths
with a higher priority are used first whatever the network conditions
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
are on these paths, it is normal to sacrifice the total bandwidth
capacity but fully use the capacity of these links with a higher
priority. If the paths with a lower priority are seen as extra
capacity that can be used only when the other links are congested, it
is fine if they are not fully used when the sender is limited by the
global sending window of the multipath connection.
For this kind of scheduler, it could be interesting to also associate
the benefits associated to a "Round-Trip-Time Threshold" scheduler
described in Section 4.4. This scheduler prevents being too impacted
by links having a higher priority but a very high RTT while other
paths, with a lower priority and a lower RTT, can be used. It is a
matter of qualifying what is important: maximizing the use of paths
over reducing the latency and probably the total bandwidth as well if
the sender and/or the receiver are limited by congestion windows.
It is also important to note that the penalization mechanism
described in the "Lowest round-trip-time first" scheduler in
Section 4.5 also needs to take into account the priority. If the
goal is to maximize the use of some links over others, links with a
higher priority cannot be penalized over the ones with a lower
priority. The consequence of this would be that links with higher
priority are under used due to the penalization.
ASCII figure
Figure 7: A simple figure
5. Informative References
[ACMCS14] Paasch, C., Ferlin, S., Alay, O., and O. Bonaventure,
"Experimental Evaluation of Multipath TCP Schedulers",
Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Capacity
sharing workshop , n.d..
[CONEXT15] Hesmans, B., Detal, G., Barre, S., Bauduin, R., and O.
Bonaventure, "SMAPP : Towards Smart Multipath TCP-
enabled APPlications", CoNEXT '15: Proceedings of the 11th
ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and
Technologies , n.d..
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp]
Amend, M., Hugo, D. V., Brunstrom, A., Kassler, A.,
Rakocevic, V., and S. Johnson, "DCCP Extensions for
Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-
dccp-05, 12 July 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-05.txt>.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
[I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]
Coninck, Q. D. and O. Bonaventure, "Multipath Extensions
for QUIC (MP-QUIC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-07, 3 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-deconinck-quic-
multipath-07.txt>.
[I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath]
Amer, P. D., Becke, M., Dreibholz, T., Ekiz, N., Iyengar,
J., Natarajan, P., Stewart, R. R., and M. Tuexen, "Load
Sharing for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tuexen-
tsvwg-sctp-multipath-22, 9 August 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-
multipath-22.txt>.
[MultipathSim]
Piraux, M., "Multipath simulator for the IETF draft
Multipath schedulers", n.d.,
<https://github.com/obonaventure/draft-
schedulers/blob/master/scheduler_simulator.py>.
[NSDI12] Raiciu, C., Paasch, C., Barre, S., Ford, A., Honda, M.,
Duchene, F., Bonaventure, O., and M. Handley, "How Hard
Can It Be? Designing and Implementing a Deployable
Multipath TCP", 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems
Design and Implementation (NSDI 12) , n.d..
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298>.
[RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
RFC 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6356>.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multipath schedulers October 2021
Appendix A. Change log
A.1. Since draft-bonaventure-iccrg-schedulers-00
* Renamed Delay Threshold to RTT Threshold
* Added the Priority And Lowest RTT First scheduler
Authors' Addresses
Olivier Bonaventure
UCLouvain
Email: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Maxime Piraux
UCLouvain
Email: Maxime.Piraux@uclouvain.be
Quentin De Coninck
UCLouvain
Email: quentin.deconinck@uclouvain.be
Matthieu Baerts
Tessares
Email: Matthieu.Baerts@tessares.net
Christoph Paasch
Apple
Email: cpaasch@apple.com
Markus Amend
Deutsche Telekom
Email: markus.amend@telekom.de
Bonaventure, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 14]
