RFC 9714

Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method

📅 published February 2025, from ietf

RFC 9714: Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method 🦋

okay bestie, let's look at the title block first 💅 This is RFC 9714, published by the IETF in February 2025. It's a Standards Track document, so it's an actual Internet standard and not just a suggestion. The ISSN is 2070-1721. The editors are W. Cheng (China Mobile) and X. Min (ZTE Corp.), both marked Ed. The other authors are T. Zhou (Huawei), J. Dai (FiberHome), and Y. Peleg (Broadcom). The title block doesn't list anything this RFC obsoletes or updates, so nothing gets replaced or patched here 🌸

Abstract ✨

This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS traffic.

Status of This Memo 📜

This is an Internet Standards Track document. 🎀

It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it reflects the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). For more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841.

For the latest status of this document, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9714 🔗

Copyright (c) 2025 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) as they stand on the publication date. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document. Code Components pulled out of this document must include the Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License 🙈

Table of Contents 🍓

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document
     2.1.  Abbreviations
     2.2.  Requirements Language
   3.  Flow-Based PM Encapsulation in MPLS
     3.1.  Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a Label Stack
       3.1.1.  Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to MPLS
               Transport
       3.1.2.  Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to MPLS
               Service
       3.1.3.  Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to both MPLS
               Transport and MPLS Service
   4.  Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-Up, and Decapsulation
   5.  Procedures of Flow-ID Allocation
   6.  FLC and FRLD Considerations
   7.  Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  IANA Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction 💖

Okay so [RFC9341] describes a performance measurement method that can measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on data traffic. It works by marking consecutive batches of packets, which is why it's called the Alternate-Marking Method 🦋 Then [RFC8372] lays out the key considerations for building a solution for MPLS flow identification, meant for monitoring the performance of MPLS flows.

This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on the MPLS traffic. The encapsulation supports performance monitoring at the intermediate nodes and MPLS flow identification at both the transport and service layers ✨

Note that, at the time of writing, there's ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) [RFC9613]. MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method can also be done with MNA encapsulation, and MNA will cover a broader range of use cases. So the MNA encapsulation is expected to be the more advanced solution 👑 The MPLS Working Group has agreed that this document will be made Historic once that solution is published as an RFC 🥲

2. Conventions Used in This Document 🎀

2.1. Abbreviations 📚

  • ACL: Access Control List
  • BoS: Bottom of Stack
  • cSPL: Composite Special Purpose Label, the combination of the Extension Label (value 15) and an Extended Special Purpose Label
  • DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point
  • ELC: Entropy Label Capability
  • ERLD: Entropy Readable Label Depth
  • eSPL: Extended Special Purpose Label, a special-purpose label that is placed in the label stack after the Extension Label (value 15)
  • FL: Flow-ID Label
  • FLC: Flow-ID Label Capability
  • FLI: Flow-ID Label Indicator
  • FRLD: Flow-ID Readable Label Depth
  • IPFIX: IP Flow Information Export [RFC7011]
  • LSP: Label Switched Path
  • LSR: Label Switching Router
  • MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
  • NMS: Network Management System
  • PHP: Penultimate Hop Popping
  • PM: Performance Measurement
  • PW: Pseudowire
  • SFL: Synonymous Flow Label
  • SID: Segment ID
  • SR: Segment Routing
  • TC: Traffic Class
  • TTL: Time to Live
  • VC: Virtual Channel
  • VPN: Virtual Private Network
  • XL: Extension Label

2.2. 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. Only the capitalized versions carry that meaning, so lowercase words are just regular English 💅

3. Flow-Based PM Encapsulation in MPLS 🦋

This document defines the Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with the Alternate-Marking Method, shown in Figure 1 below 🌈

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Extension Label (15)         |  TC |S|      TTL      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Flow-ID Label Indicator (18)      |  TC |S|      TTL      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Flow-ID Label             |L|D|T|S|      TTL      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 1: Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS

The Flow-ID Label Indicator (FLI) is an Extended Special Purpose Label (eSPL), and it gets combined with the Extension Label (XL, value 15) to form a Composite Special Purpose Label (cSPL), as defined in [RFC9017]. In this document, the FLI is value 18 🎀

The rules for the header fields go like this 📋 The Traffic Class (TC) and Time To Live (TTL) fields of the XL and FLI MUST use the same values as the label right before the XL. The Bottom of the Stack (BoS) bit [RFC3032] for the XL and FLI MUST be zero. If any XL or FLI a node processes has the BoS bit set, the node MUST discard the packet and MAY log an error 😭

The Flow-ID Label (FL) is used as an MPLS flow identification [RFC8372]. Its value MUST be unique within the administrative domain. FL values MAY be allocated by an external NMS or controller, based on the measurement object instances (such as an LSP or PW). There's a one-to-one mapping between a Flow-ID and a flow. Section 5 explains how to allocate FL values 💜

The FL, preceded by a cSPL, can go at the bottom or in the middle of the MPLS label stack, but not at the top. It MAY appear multiple times within a label stack. Section 3.1 of this document has several examples of how the FL shows up in a label stack ✨ The TTL for the FL MUST be zero so it doesn't get used by accident for forwarding 🙈 For the BoS bit on the FL, it depends on placement: the BoS bit for the FL is set only when the FL is placed at the bottom of the MPLS label stack.

Besides flow identification, the Alternate-Marking Method also needs a color-marking field. To color MPLS traffic and tell hop-by-hop measurement apart from edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined like this 🌸

  • L(oss) bit: used for coloring MPLS packets for loss measurement. Setting the bit means color 1, and unsetting it means color 0.
  • D(elay) bit: used for coloring MPLS packets for delay/jitter measurement. Setting the bit means color for delay measurement.
  • T(ype) bit: used to indicate the measurement type. When the T bit is set to 1, that means edge-to-edge performance measurement. When the T bit is set to 0, that means hop-by-hop performance measurement.

Since the FL isn't used as a forwarding label, repurposing the TC for the FL is feasible and viable 💅

3.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a Label Stack 🧚

Three examples of different FL layouts (4 octets each) are shown below. Note that more examples may exist 🌈

3.1.1. Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to MPLS Transport 🚀

                +----------------------+
                |          LSP         |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |       Extension      |    |
                |         Label        |    |
                +----------------------+    |--- cSPL
                |     Flow-ID Label    |    |
                |       Indicator      |    |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |        Flow-ID       |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+
                |      Application     |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
                |                      |
                |        Payload       |
                |                      |
                +----------------------+

                Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS Transport

Okay, the PHP part is the spicy bit 🌶️ With penultimate hop popping (PHP, Section 3.16 of [RFC3031]), the top label is "popped at the penultimate LSR of the LSP, rather than at the LSP Egress". The final bullet of Section 4 of this document says "[t]he processing node MUST pop the XL, FLI, and FL from the MPLS label stack when it needs to pop the preceding forwarding label". So the penultimate Label Switching Router (LSR) has to follow the Section 4 requirement to support this specification. If it does, the egress LSR gets excluded from the performance measurement. That means that when this specification is in use, PHP should be disabled, unless the penultimate LSR is known to have the necessary support, or unless it's acceptable to exclude the egress LSR 😭🫶

Also, in other examples of applying Flow-ID to MPLS transport, one LSP label can be swapped out for multiple SID labels when using an SR Policy. The combination of cSPL and FL can then be placed between SID labels, as specified in Section 6 💖

3.1.2. Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to MPLS Service ✨

okay bestie, this is the layout when the Flow-ID gets applied to the MPLS service 💅 Here's the stack from top to bottom:

                +----------------------+
                |          LSP         |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+
                |      Application     |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |       Extension      |    |
                |         Label        |    |
                +----------------------+    |--- cSPL
                |     Flow-ID Label    |    |
                |       Indicator      |    |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |        Flow-ID       |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
                |                      |
                |        Payload       |
                |                      |
                +----------------------+

Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS Service 🎀

ngl, in this case the application label can be an MPLS PW label, an MPLS Ethernet VPN label, or an MPLS IP VPN label. It's also called a VC label, as defined in [RFC4026] 🦋

3.1.3. Layout of the Flow-ID Label when Applied to both MPLS Transport and MPLS Service 👑

this one is the main character era 😭 the Flow-ID gets applied to both the MPLS transport and the MPLS service:

                +----------------------+
                |          LSP         |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |       Extension      |    |
                |         Label        |    |
                +----------------------+    |--- cSPL
                |     Flow-ID Label    |    |
                |       Indicator      |    |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |        Flow-ID       |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+
                |      Application     |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |       Extension      |    |
                |         Label        |    |
                +----------------------+    |--- cSPL
                |     Flow-ID Label    |    |
                |       Indicator      |    |
                +----------------------+ <--+
                |        Flow-ID       |
                |         Label        |
                +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
                |                      |
                |        Payload       |
                |                      |
                +----------------------+

Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS Transport and MPLS Service 🌈

key detail here 🙈 the two FL values in one label stack must be different. so the FL for the MPLS transport and the FL for the MPLS service have to be different. ALSO, the two FL values are independent of each other. two packets can be in the same VPN flow but different LSP flows, or in different VPN flows but the same LSP flow. the vibes are totally separate 💜

4. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-Up, and Decapsulation 🧚

okay so here's how FL encapsulation, look-up, and decapsulation go, in three steps:

  • The MPLS ingress node [RFC3031] inserts the XL, FLI, and FL into the MPLS label stack. At the same time, the ingress node sets the FL value, the two color-marking bits, and the T bit, as defined in Section 3 🌸
  • If edge-to-edge measurement is applied, i.e., the T bit is set to 1, then only the MPLS ingress/egress node [RFC3031] is the processing node. Otherwise, all the MPLS nodes along the LSP are the processing nodes. The processing node looks up the FL with the help of the XL and FLI, and exports the collected data (such as the Flow-ID, block counters, and timestamps) to an external NMS/controller, referring to the Alternate-Marking Method. Section 6 of [ALT-MARK] describes protocols for collected data export. The details on how to export the collected data are outside the scope of this document. Note that while looking up the FL, the transit node needs to inspect beyond the label at the top of the label stack used to make forwarding decisions 🔍
  • The processing node MUST pop the XL, FLI, and FL from the MPLS label stack when it needs to pop the preceding forwarding label. The egress node MUST pop the whole MPLS label stack. This document doesn't introduce any new process to the decapsulated packet 🫶

5. Procedures of Flow-ID Allocation ✨

there are at least two ways to allocate a Flow-ID. one is a manual trigger from the network operator, and the other is an automatic trigger from the ingress node. here's the tea:

  • In the case of a manual trigger, the network operator manually inputs the characteristics (e.g., IP five tuples and IP DSCP) of the measured flow. Then the NMS/controller generates one or two Flow-IDs based on the input from the network operator, and provisions the ingress node with the characteristics of the measured flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s) 🎀
  • In the case of an automatic trigger, the ingress node identifies the flow entering the measured path and exports the characteristics of the identified flow to the NMS/controller by IPFIX [RFC7011]. Then the NMS/controller generates one or two Flow-IDs based on the characteristics exported from the ingress node, and provisions the ingress node with the characteristics of the identified flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s) 🦋

the policy preconfigured at the NMS/controller decides whether one Flow-ID or two Flow-IDs get generated. If performance measurement on the MPLS service is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to the MPLS service is generated. If performance measurement on the MPLS transport is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to the MPLS transport is generated. If both are enabled, then two Flow-IDs are respectively applied to the MPLS service and the MPLS transport are generated. In this case, a transit node needs to look up both of the two Flow-IDs by default. However, this behavior can be changed through configuration, such as by setting it to look up only the Flow-ID applied to the MPLS transport 🍓

whether you use the two methods above or some other method to allocate Flow-IDs, the NMS/controller MUST ensure that every generated Flow-ID is unique within the administrative domain, and MUST NOT have any value in the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032]. Specifically, "Flow-ID is unique" means that the values of Flow-ID are distinct and non-redundant for any flow at any given time within an administrative domain, such that no two flows share the same Flow-ID. This uniqueness ensures that each flow can be individually identified, tracked, and differentiated from others for accurate performance monitoring and management 💖

6. FLC and FRLD Considerations 🌈

this section is giving ELC and ERLD energy 💅 The Entropy Label Capability (ELC) is defined in Section 5 of [RFC6790], and the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) is defined in Section 4 of [RFC8662]. Analogously, this document defines the Flow-ID Label Capability (FLC) and the Flow-ID Readable Label Depth (FRLD). FLC and FRLD have similar semantics to ELC and ERLD for a router, except that the Flow-ID is used for its flow identification function, while the Entropy is used for its load-balancing function 🧚

the ingress node MUST insert each FL at an appropriate depth, which ensures the node to which the FL is exposed has the FLC. The ingress node SHOULD insert each FL within an appropriate FRLD, which is the minimum FRLD of all the on-path nodes that need to read and use the FL in question. How the ingress node knows the FLC and FRLD of all the on-path nodes is outside the scope of this document 🔥

when SR paths are used for transport, the label stack grows as the number of on-path segments increases. If the number of on-path segments is high, that may become a challenge for placing the FL within an appropriate FRLD. To overcome this potential challenge, an implementation MAY allow the ingress node to place FL between SID labels. This means that multiple identical FLs at different depths MAY be interleaved with SID labels. When this occurs, sophisticated network planning may be needed, which is beyond the scope of this document 🧠

7. Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations 🦋

analogous to what's described in Section 5 of [RFC8957], under conditions of equal-cost multipath, introducing the FL may lead to the same problem caused by the Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) [RFC8957]. The two solutions proposed for SFL also apply here. Specifically, adding FL to an existing flow may cause that flow to take a different path. If the operator wants to resolve this problem, they can choose to apply entropy labels [RFC6790] or add FL to all flows 🌸

8. Security Considerations 🚨

this part is SERIOUS bestie, read it carefully 😭

as specified in Section 7.1 of [RFC9341], "for security reasons, the Alternate-Marking Method MUST only be applied to controlled domains." This requirement applies when MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method is taken into account. That means the MPLS encapsulation and related procedures defined in this document MUST only be applied to controlled domains. Otherwise, the potential attacks discussed in Section 10 of [RFC9341] may be applied to the deployed MPLS networks 💀

as specified in Section 3, the value of an FL MUST be unique within the administrative domain. In other words, the administrative domain is the scope of an FL. The method for achieving multi-domain performance measurement with the same FL is outside the scope of this document. The FL MUST NOT be signaled and distributed outside the administrative domain. Improper configuration that allows the FL to be passed from one administrative domain to another would result in Flow-ID conflicts 🙈

to prevent packets carrying FLs from leaking from one domain to another, domain boundary nodes MUST deploy policies (e.g., ACL) to filter out these packets. Specifically, at the sending edge, the domain boundary node MUST filter out the packets that carry the FLI and are sent to other domains. At the receiving edge, the domain boundary node MUST drop the packets that carry the FLI and are from other domains. Note that packet leakage is neither breaching privacy nor a source of DoS 🛡️

9. IANA Considerations 🍓

IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry, within the "Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values" registry group:

        +=======+===============================+===========+
        | Value | Description                   | Reference |
        +=======+===============================+===========+
        | 18    | Flow-ID Label Indicator (FLI) | RFC 9714  |
        +-------+-------------------------------+-----------+

Table 1: New Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID Label Indicator 💜

10. References 📚

10. References ✨

10.1. Normative References 📌

[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.

[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031.

[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032.

[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.

[RFC9017] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017, DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017.

10.2. Informative References 🦋

[ALT-MARK] Fioccola, G., Zhu, K., Graf, T., Nilo, M., and L. Zhang, "Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-02, 9 October 2024, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-02.

[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026.

[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790.

[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011.

[RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G. Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations", RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8372.

[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662, DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662.

[RFC8957] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", RFC 8957, DOI 10.17487/RFC8957, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8957.

[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341.

[RFC9613] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions (MNAs)", RFC 9613, DOI 10.17487/RFC9613, August 2024, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9613.

Acknowledgements 🫶

okay, the authors have to give a shoutout to everyone who made this doc slay 💖 Loa Andersson, Tarek Saad, Stewart Bryant, Rakesh Gandhi, Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu, Shuangping Zhan, Ming Ke, Wei He, Ximing Dong, Darren Dukes, Tony Li, James Guichard, Daniele Ceccarelli, Éric Vyncke, John Scudder, Gunter van de Velde, Roman Danyliw, Warren Kumari, Murray Kucherawy, Deb Cooley, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Deborah Brungard all gave careful review and really helpful comments 🙌

They also thank Italo Busi and Chandrasekar Ramachandran for their insightful MPLS-RT review and constructive comments 🌸

And Dhruv Dhody gets a big thank-you for the English grammar review 📝✨

Contributors 💜

Minxue Wang
China Mobile
Email: wangminxue@chinamobile.com
Wen Ye
China Mobile
Email: yewen@chinamobile.com

Authors' Addresses 🦋

Weiqiang Cheng (editor)
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min (editor)
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Jinyou Dai
FiberHome
Wuhan
China
Email: djy@fiberhome.com
Yoav Peleg
Broadcom
United States of America
Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com
📦 where this page comes from