Internet DRAFT - draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm
draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm
SPRING Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 12 February 2024 N. Vaghamshi
Reliance
M. Nagarajah
Telstra
R. Foote
Nokia
M. Chen
Huawei
A. Dhamija
Rakuten
11 August 2023
Enhanced Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP in Segment Routing
Networks
draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm-05
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is
applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
(SRv6) data planes. This document defines procedure for Enhanced
Performance Measurement of end-to-end SR paths including SR Policies
for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes using Simple Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) defined in RFC 8762. The procedure
allows to improve the scale for number of sessions and the interval
for measurement.
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 12 February 2024.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Enhanced Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure for SR-MPLS
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Timestamp and Forward Network Action Assignment . . . 8
4.1.2. Node Capability for MNA Sub-Stack with Opcode
MNA.TSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure for SRv6
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Timestamp and Forward Endpoint Function Assignment . 10
4.2.2. Node Capability for Timestamp and Forward Endpoint
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm and
greatly simplifies network operations for Software Defined Networks
(SDNs). SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-
MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes [RFC8402]. SR Policies as defined
in [RFC9256] are used to steer traffic through a specific, user-
defined paths using a stack of Segments. A comprehensive SR
Performance Measurement (PM) for delay and packet loss as well as
Connectivity Verification (CV) is one of the essential requirements
to measure network performance to provide Service Level Agreements
(SLAs).
The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
capabilities for the measurement of various performance metrics in IP
networks [RFC8762] without the use of a control channel to pre-signal
session parameters. As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm],
STAMP can be used for performance measurement of one-way, two-way or
round-trip delay and packet loss of end-to-end SR paths.
STAMP requires RFC8762 protocol support on the Session-Reflector to
process the received test packets, and hence the received test
packets need to be punted from the forwarding fast path and return
test packets need to be generated. This limits the scale for number
test sessions and the ability to provide faster measurement interval.
The loopback measurement mode defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
does not require STAMP test packet processing on Session-Reflector,
however, it does not provide accurate one-way delay.
This document defines procedure for Enhanced Performance Measurement
of end-to-end SR paths including SR Policies for both SR-MPLS and
SRv6 data planes, using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) defined in [RFC8762]. The procedure allows to improve the
scale for number of sessions and the interval for measurement.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
2.2. Abbreviations
BSID: Binding Segment ID.
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
I2E: Ingress-To-Egress.
IHS: Ingress-To-Egress, Hop-By-Hop or Select Scope.
MBZ: Must be Zero.
MNA: MPLS Network Action.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PTP: Precision Time Protocol.
SID: Segment ID.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane.
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol.
TC: Traffic Class.
TS: Timestamp.
TSF: Timestamp and Forward.
TTL: Time To Live.
2.3. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown in Figure 1, the STAMP [RFC8762]
Session-Sender S1 initiates a Session-Sender test packet and the
Session-Reflector R1 returns the test packet. The return test packet
may be transmitted back to the Session-Sender S1 on the same path
(same set of links and nodes) or a different path in the reverse
direction from the path taken towards the Session-Reflector R1.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
The Session-Sender S1 and Session-Reflector R1 are connected via an
SR path [RFC8402]. The SR path can be an SR Policy [RFC9256] on node
S1 (called head-end) with destination to node R1 (called tail-end).
T1 T2
/ \
+-------+ STAMP Test Packet +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - - - | |
| S1 |======================|| R1 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Return Test Packet +-------+
\
T4
Session-Sender Session-Reflector
(Timestamp,
and Forward)
Figure 1: Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming Function
3. Overview
As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm], in loopback mode, the
STAMP Session-Sender S1 initiates Session-Sender test packets and the
Session-Reflector R1 forwards them back to the Session-Sender S1.
The received STAMP test packets are not punted out of the fast path
in forwarding at the Session-Reflector. At the Session-Reflector,
the loopback function simply makes the necessary changes to the
encapsulation including IP and UDP headers to return the STAMP test
packet to the Session-Sender S1. No STAMP test session is created on
the Session-Reflector R1. As described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm], only loopback delay can be measured in
the loopback mode. In SR networks, there is also a need to measure
the one-way delay metric to provide low latency services.
3.1. Enhanced Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming Function
This document defines a new STAMP measurement mode, called enhanced
loopback mode, that is loopback mode enabled with network programming
function. In this mode, both transmit (T1) and receive (T2)
timestamps in data plane are collected by the Session-Sender test
packets as shown in Figure 1. The network programming function
optimizes the "operations of punt test packet and generate return
test packet" on the Session-Reflector as timestamping is implemented
in forwarding fast path in hardware. This helps to achieve higher
number of STAMP test session scale and faster measurement interval.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
The Session-Sender adds transmit timestamp (T1) in the payload of the
Session-Sender test packet. The Session-Reflector adds the receive
timestamp (T2) in the payload of the received test packet in
forwarding fast path in hardware without punting the test packet
(e.g., to slow path or control-plane). The network programming
function carried by the test packet enables the Session-Reflector to
add the receive timestamp (T2) at the specific offset in the payload
of the test packet.
4. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure
For enhanced performance monitoring of an end-to-end SR path
including SR Policy, STAMP Session-Sender test packets are
transmitted in loopback mode enabled with network programming
function to timestamp and forward the packet.
For SR Policy, the Session-Sender test packets are transmitted using
the Segment List of the Candidate-Path [RFC9256]. When a Candidate-
Path has more than one Segment List, multiple Session-Sender test
packets MUST be transmitted, one using each Segment List as described
in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm].
4.1. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure for SR-MPLS Policies
An SR-MPLS Policy Candidate-Path may contain a number of Segment
Lists. A Session-Sender test packet MUST be transmitted using each
Segment List of the SR-MPLS Policy. The content of an example
Session-Sender test packet for an end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy is shown
in Figure 3.
The loopback measurement mode for SR-MPLS Policies defined in
Section 4.2.3.3 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] is used and enhanced
as described below.
MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] is used for SR-MPLS data plane to enable
network programming function of "timestamp and forward" for the
received test packet. The MNA Sub-Stack carries the MNA Label (value
TBA1) as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. A new MNA Opcode (value
MNA.TSF) is defined for the Timestamp and Forward network action.
In the Session-Sender test packets for SR-MPLS Policies, the MNA Sub-
Stack with Opcode MNA.TSF is added in the MPLS header as shown in
Figure 3, to collect "Receive Timestamp" field in the payload of the
test packet. The Ingress-to-Egress (I2E), Hop-By-Hop (HBH), Select
scope (IHS) is set to "I2E" when return path is IP/UDP and set to
"Select" when the return path is SR-MPLS. The Network Action Sub-
Stack Length (NASL) is set to 0 when there is no Label Stack Entry
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
(LSE) after the MNA.TSF Opcode in the MNA Sub-Stack. The U flag is
set to skip the network action and forward the packet (and not drop
the packet). The Label Stack for the reverse direction SR-MPLS path
can be added after the MNA Sub-Stack (not shown in the Figure 3) to
receive the return test packet on a specific path.
When a Session-Reflector receives a packet with MNA Sub-Stack with
Opcode MNA.TSF, after timestamping the packet in STAMP payload at the
specific offset, the Session-Reflector pops the MNA Sub-Stack (after
completing any other network actions) and forwards the packet using
the next label or IP header in the packet (just like the data packets
for the normal traffic).
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MNA Label (value TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7b MNA.TSF | 0x0 |R|IHS|S| RES |U|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next header = UDP (17) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = Dynamically chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = Source Port .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 1 and Figure 3 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example STAMP Test Packet with MNA for TSF for SR-MPLS
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
4.1.1. Timestamp and Forward Network Action Assignment
New MPLS Network Action Opcode is defined called "Timestamp and
Forward Network Action, MNA.TSF". The MNA.TSF Opcode is statically
configured on the STAMP Session-Reflector node with a value from
"Private Use from Range 111-126". The timestamp format for 64-bit
PTPv2 and NTP to be added in the STAMP payload is statically
configured for MNA.TSF. The offset in the STAMP payload (e.g., for
unauthenticated mode (value 16)) is also statically configured for
MNA.TSF.
4.1.2. Node Capability for MNA Sub-Stack with Opcode MNA.TSF
The STAMP Session-Sender needs to know if the Session-Reflector can
process the MNA Sub-Stack with Opcode MNA.TSF to avoid dropping the
test packets. The signaling extension for this capability exchange
or local configuration are outside the scope of this document.
4.2. Enhanced Performance Measurement Procedure for SRv6 Policies
An SRv6 Policy Candidate-Path may contain a number of Segment Lists.
Each Segment List may contain a number of SRv6 SIDs as defined in
[RFC8986]. A Session-Sender test packet MUST be transmitted using
each Segment List of the SRv6 Policy. An SRv6 Policy may contain an
SRv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) carrying a Segment List as
described in [RFC8754]. The content of an example Session-Sender
test packet for an end-to-end SRv6 Policy using an SRH is shown in
Figure 4.
The loopback measurement mode for SRv6 Policies defined in
Section 4.2.3.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] is used and enhanced
as described below.
The [RFC8986] defines SRv6 Endpoint Behaviours for SRv6 nodes. A new
Timestamp and Forward Endpoint Behaviour is defined for Segment
Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] to enable "Timestamp and Forward
(TSF)" function for the received test packets.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
In the Session-Sender test packets for SRv6 Policies, Timestamp and
Forward Endpoint Function (End.TSF) is carried with the target
Segment Identifier (SID) in SRH [RFC8754] as shown in Figure 4, to
collect "Receive Timestamp" field in the payload of the test packet.
The Segment List for the reverse direction path can be added after
the target SID to receive the return test packet on a specific path.
When a Session-Reflector receives a packet with Timestamp and Forward
Endpoint (End.TSF) for the target SID, which is local, after
timestamping the packet at the specific offset, the Session-Reflector
forwards the packet using the next SID in the SRH or inner IPv6
header in the packet (just like the data packets for the normal
traffic).
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv6 Address | .
. Segment List[Segments Left] .
. Next-Header = 43, Routing Type = SRH (4) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH as specified in RFC 8754 |
. <Segment List> .
. <SRv6 Endpoint End.TSF> .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. Next-Header = UDP (17) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = Dynamically chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = Source Port .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 1 and Figure 3 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Example STAMP Test Packet with Endpoint Function for
TSF for SRv6
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
4.2.1. Timestamp and Forward Endpoint Function Assignment
New SRv6 Endpoint Behavior is defined called "Endpoint Behavior bound
to SID with Timestamp and Forward (End.TSF)". The End.TSF is a node
SID instantiated at STAMP Session-Reflector node. The End.TSF is
statically configured on the STAMP Session-Reflector node and not
advertised into the routing protocols. The timestamp format for
64-bit PTPv2 and NTP to be added in the STAMP payload is statically
configured for End.TSF. The offset in the STAMP payload (e.g., for
unauthenticated mode (value 16)) is also statically configured for
End.TSF.
4.2.2. Node Capability for Timestamp and Forward Endpoint Function
The STAMP Session-Sender needs to know if the Session-Reflector can
process the Timestamp and Forward Endpoint Function to avoid dropping
test packets. The signaling extension for this capability exchange
or local configuration are outside the scope of this document.
5. Security Considerations
The procedures defined in this document is intended for deployment in
a single operator network domain. As such, the Session-Sender
address, Session-Reflector address, and IP and SR forward and return
paths are provisioned by the operator for the STAMP session. It is
assumed that the operator has verified the integrity of the IP and SR
forward and return paths used to transmit STAMP test packets.
The Security Considerations specified in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] also
apply to the procedures defined in this document.
The Security Considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
are also applicable to the procedures defined in this document.
The Security Considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] are
also applicable to the procedures defined in this document.
The Security Considerations specified in [RFC8986] are also
applicable to the procedures defined in this document.
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA action.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., and R.
Foote, "Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP (STAMP)
for Segment Routing Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-09, 7 August 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-
srpm-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Zigler, R., Ed.,
Song, H., Ed., and K. Kompella, Ed., "MPLS Network Action
Sub-Stack Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-02, March 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
02.txt>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Kireeti Kompella, and
Adrian Farrel for providing useful comments.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Navin Vaghamshi
Reliance
Email: Navin.Vaghamshi@ril.com
Moses Nagarajah
Telstra
Email: Moses.Nagarajah@team.telstra.com
Richard Foote
Nokia
Email: footer.foote@nokia.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Measurement in SR August 2023
Amit Dhamija
Rakuten
Email: amit.dhamija@rakuten.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 12 February 2024 [Page 13]
