One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-06.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="no"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="6"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-06.txt"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="LDP Hello Cryptographic Authentication">LDP Hello
Cryptographic Authentication</title>
<author fullname="Lianshu Zheng" initials="L." surname="Zheng">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>vero.zheng@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>mach.chen@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Manav Bhatia" initials="M." surname="Bhatia">
<organization>Alcatel-Lucent</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>manavbhatia@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="21" month="May" year="2014"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document introduces a new optional Cryptographic Authentication
TLV that LDP can use to secure its Hello messages. It secures the Hello
messages against spoofing attacks and some well known attacks against
the IP header. This document describes a mechanism to secure the LDP
Hello messages using National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Secure Hash Standard family of algorithms.</t>
</abstract>
<note title="Requirements Language">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
</note>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) <xref target="RFC5036"/> sets
up LDP sessions that run between LDP peers. The peers could either be
directly connected at the link level or could be multiple hops away. An
LDP Label Switching Router (LSR) could either be configured with the
identity of its peers or could discover them using LDP Hello messages.
These messages are sent encapsulated in UDP addressed to "all routers on
this subnet" or to a specific IP address. Periodic Hello messages are
also used to maintain the relationship between LDP peers necessary to
keep the LDP session active.</t>
<t>Since the Hello messages are sent using UDP and not TCP, these
messages cannot use the security mechanisms defined for TCP <xref
target="RFC5926"> </xref>. While some configuration guidance is given in
<xref target="RFC5036"/> to help protect against false discovery
messages, it does not provide an explicit security mechanism to protect
the Hello messages.</t>
<t>Spoofing a Hello packet for an existing adjacency can cause the valid
adjacency to time out and in turn can result in termination of the
associated session. This can occur when the spoofed Hello specifies a
smaller Hold Time, causing the receiver to expect Hellos within this
smaller interval, while the true neighbor continues sending Hellos at
the previously agreed lower frequency. Spoofing a Hello packet can also
cause the LDP session to be terminated directly, which can occur when
the spoofed Hello specifies a different Transport Address, other than
the previously agreed one between neighbors. Spoofed Hello messages have
been observed and reported as a real problem in production networks
<xref target="RFC6952"/>. </t>
<t>For Link Hello, <xref target="RFC5036"/> states that the threat of
spoofed Hellos can be reduced by accepting Hellos only on interfaces to
which LSRs that can be trusted are directly connected, and ignoring
Hellos not addressed to the "all routers on this subnet" multicast
group. The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) provides a simple
and reasonably robust defense mechanism for Link Hello <xref
target="RFC6720"/>, but it does not secure against packet spoofing
attack or replay attack<xref target="RFC5082"/>.</t>
<t>Spoofing attacks via Targeted Hellos are a potentially more serious
threat. <xref target="RFC5036"/> states that an LSR can reduce the
threat of spoofed Targeted Hellos by filtering them and accepting only
those originating at sources permitted by an access list. However,
filtering using access lists requires LSR resource, and does not prevent
IP-address spoofing.</t>
<t>This document introduces a new Cryptographic Authentication TLV which
is used in LDP Hello messages as an optional parameter. It enhances the
authentication mechanism for LDP by securing the Hello message against
spoofing attack. It also introduces a cryptographic sequence number
carried in the Hello messages that can be used to protect against replay
attacks. The LSRs could be configured to only accept Hello messages from
specific peers when authentication is in use. </t>
<t>Using this Cryptographic Authentication TLV, one or more secret keys
(with corresponding Security Association (SA) IDs) are configured in
each system. For each LDP Hello message, the key is used to generate and
verify a HMAC Hash that is stored in the LDP Hello message. For
cryptographic hash function, this document proposes to use SHA-1,
SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 defined in US NIST Secure Hash Standard
(SHS) <xref target="FIPS-180-3"/>. The HMAC authentication mode defined
in <xref target="RFC2104"/> is used.
<!-- Replaced FIPS by the respective RFC -->
Of the above,
implementations MUST include support for at least HMAC-SHA-256 and
SHOULD include support for HMAC-SHA-1 and MAY include support for either
of HMAC-SHA-384 or HMAC-SHA-512.</t>
</section>
<section title="Cryptographic Authentication TLV">
<section title="Optional Parameter for Hello Message">
<t><xref target="RFC5036"/> defines the encoding for the Hello
message. Each Hello message contains zero or more Optional Parameters,
each encoded as a TLV. Three Optional Parameters are defined by <xref
target="RFC5036"/>. This document defines a new Optional Parameter:
the Cryptographic Authentication parameter.</t>
<figure align="left">
<artwork><![CDATA[
Optional Parameter Type
------------------------------- --------
IPv4 Transport Address 0x0401 (RFC5036)
Configuration Sequence Number 0x0402 (RFC5036)
IPv6 Transport Address 0x0403 (RFC5036)
Cryptographic Authentication 0x0404 (this document, TBD1 by IANA)
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>The Cryptographic Authentication TLV Encoding is described in
section 2.3.</t>
</section>
<section title="LDP Security Association">
<t>An LDP Security Association (SA) contains a set of parameters
shared between any two legitimate LDP speakers.</t>
<t>Parameters associated with an LDP SA are as follows:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Security Association Identifier (SA ID) <vspace
blankLines="1"/> This is a 32-bit unsigned integer used to
uniquely identify an LDP SA between two LDP peers, as manually
configured by the network operator (or, in the future, possibly by
some key management protocol specified by the IETF) .<vspace
blankLines="1"/> The receiver determines the active SA by looking
at the SA ID field in the incoming Hello message. <vspace
blankLines="1"/> The sender, based on the active configuration,
selects an SA to use and puts the correct SA ID value associated
with the SA in the LDP Hello message. If multiple valid and active
LDP SAs exist for a given interface, the sender may use any of
those SAs to protect the packet.<vspace blankLines="1"/> Using SA
IDs makes changing keys while maintaining protocol operation
convenient. Each SA ID specifies two independent parts, the
authentication algorithm and the authentication key, as explained
below. <vspace blankLines="1"/> Normally, an implementation would
allow the network operator to configure a set of keys in a key
chain, with each key in the chain having fixed lifetime. The
actual operation of these mechanisms is outside the scope of this
document.<vspace blankLines="1"/> Note that each SA ID can
indicate a key with a different authentication algorithm. This
allows the introduction of new authentication mechanisms without
disrupting existing LDP sessions.</t>
<t>Authentication Algorithm <vspace blankLines="1"/> This
signifies the authentication algorithm to be used with the LDP SA.
This information is never sent in clear text over the wire.
Because this information is not sent on the wire, the implementer
chooses an implementation specific representation for this
information. <vspace blankLines="1"/> Currently, the following
algorithms are supported: <vspace blankLines="1"/> HMAC-SHA-1,
HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512.</t>
<t>Authentication Key <vspace blankLines="1"/> This value denotes
the cryptographic authentication key associated with the LDP SA.
The length of this key is variable and depends upon the
authentication algorithm specified by the LDP SA.</t>
<t>KeyStartAccept <vspace blankLines="1"/> The time that this LDP
router will accept packets that have been created with this LDP
Security Association.</t>
<t>KeyStartGenerate <vspace blankLines="1"/> The time that this
LDP router will begin using this LDP Security Association for LDP
Hello message generation.</t>
<t>KeyStopGenerate <vspace blankLines="1"/> The time that this LDP
router will stop using this LDP Security Association for LDP Hello
message generation.</t>
<t>KeyStopAccept <vspace blankLines="1"/> The time that this LDP
router will stop accepting packets generated with this LDP
Security Association.</t>
</list></t>
<t>In order to achieve smooth key transition, KeyStartAccept SHOULD be
less than KeyStartGenerate and KeyStopGenerate SHOULD be less than
KeyStopAccept. If KeyStartGenerate or KeyStartAccept are left
unspecified, the time will default to 0 and the key will be used
immediately. If KeyStopGenerate or KeyStopAccept are left unspecified,
the time will default to infinity and the key's lifetime will be
infinite. When a new key replaces an old, the KeyStartGenerate time
for the new key MUST be less than or equal to the KeyStopGenerate time
of the old key. Any unspecified values are encoded as Zero.</t>
<t>Key storage SHOULD persist across a system restart, warm or cold,
to avoid operational issues. In the event that the last key associated
with an interface expires, it is unacceptable to revert to an
unauthenticated condition, and not advisable to disrupt routing.
Therefore, the router SHOULD send a "last Authentication Key
expiration" notification to the network manager and treat the key as
having an infinite lifetime until the lifetime is extended, the key is
deleted by network management, or a new key is configured</t>
</section>
<section title="Cryptographic Authentication TLV Encoding">
<figure align="left">
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Auth (TBD1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Security Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cryptographic Sequence Number (High Order 32 Bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cryptographic Sequence Number (Low Order 32 Bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Authentication Data (Variable) |
~ ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t>- Type: TBD1, Cryptographic Authentication</t>
<t>- Length: Specifying the length in octets of the value field.</t>
<t>- Security Association ID: 32 bit field that maps to the
authentication algorithm and the secret key used to create the message
digest carried in LDP payload.</t>
<t>Though the SA ID implies the algorithm, the HMAC output size should
not be used by implementers as an implicit hint, because additional
algorithms may be defined in the future that have the same output
size.</t>
<t>- Cryptographic Sequence Number: 64-bit strictly increasing
sequence number that is used to guard against replay attacks. The
64-bit sequence number MUST be incremented for every LDP Hello packet
sent by the LDP router. Upon reception, the sequence number MUST be
greater than the sequence number in the last LDP Hello packet accepted
from the sending LDP neighbor. Otherwise, the LDP packet is considered
a replayed packet and dropped.</t>
<t>LDP routers implementing this specification MUST use existing
mechanisms to preserve the sequence number's strictly increasing
property for the deployed life of the LDP router (including cold
restarts). One mechanism for accomplishing this could be to use the
high-order 32 bits of the sequence number as a boot count that is
incremented anytime the LDP router loses its sequence number state.
Techniques such as sequence number space partitioning described above
or non-volatile storage preservation can be used but are beyond the
scope of this specification. Sequence number wrap is described in
<xref target="Sequence-Wrap"/>.</t>
<t>- Authentication Data:</t>
<t>This field carries the digest computed by the Cryptographic
Authentication algorithm in use. The length of the Authentication Data
varies based on the cryptographic algorithm in use, which is shown as
below:</t>
<figure align="left">
<artwork><![CDATA[
Auth type Length
--------------- ----------
HMAC-SHA1 20 bytes
HMAC-SHA-256 32 bytes
HMAC-SHA-384 48 bytes
HMAC-SHA-512 64 bytes
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="Sequence-Wrap" title="Sequence Number Wrap">
<t>When incrementing the sequence number for each transmitted LDP
packet, the sequence number should be treated as an unsigned 64-bit
value. If the lower order 32-bit value wraps, the higher order 32-bit
value should be incremented and saved in non-volatile storage. If the
LDP router is deployed long enough that the 64-bit sequence number
wraps, all keys, independent of key distribution mechanism MUST be
reset. This is done to avoid the possibility of replay attacks. Once
the keys have been changed, the higher order sequence number can be
reset to 0 and saved to non-volatile storage.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Crypto_Auth_Procedure"
title="Cryptographic Authentication Procedure">
<t>As noted earlier, the Security Association ID maps to the
authentication algorithm and the secret key used to generate and verify
the message digest. This specification discusses the computation of LDP
Cryptographic Authentication data when any of the NIST SHS family of
algorithms is used in the Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC)
mode. <vspace blankLines="1"/> The currently valid algorithms (including
mode) for LDP Cryptographic Authentication include: <vspace
blankLines="1"/> HMAC-SHA-1, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384 and HMAC-SHA-512
<vspace blankLines="1"/> Of the above, implementations of this
specification MUST include support for at least HMAC-SHA-256 and SHOULD
include support for HMAC-SHA-1 and MAY also include support for
HMAC-SHA-384 and HMAC-SHA-512.<vspace blankLines="1"/> Implementations
of this standard MUST use HMAC-SHA-256 as the default authentication
algorithm.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Cross-Protocol" title="Cross Protocol Attack Mitigation">
<t>In order to prevent cross protocol replay attacks for protocols
sharing common keys, the two octet LDP Cryptographic Protocol ID is
appended to the authentication key prior to use (refer to Section 8).
Other protocols using the common key similarly append their own
Cryptographic Protocol IDs to their keys prior to use thus ensuring that
a different key value is used for each protocol.</t>
</section>
<section title="Cryptographic Aspects">
<t>In the algorithm description below, the following nomenclature is used:</t>
<!-- No need to reference FIPS when we have an RFC for HMAC -->
<t>H is the specific hashing algorithm (e.g. SHA-256). <vspace
blankLines="1"/> K is the Authentication Key from the LDP security
association.<vspace blankLines="1"/> Ks is a Protocol Specific
Authentication Key obtained by appending Authentication Key (K) with the
two-octet LDP Cryptographic Protocol ID .<vspace
blankLines="1"/> Ko is the cryptographic key used with the hash
algorithm.</t>
<!-- Removed parameters that are not needed if HMAC is a black box -->
<t>L is the length of the hash, measured in octets rather than
bits.<vspace blankLines="1"/> AuthTag is a value which is the same length
<!-- renamed Apad to AuthTag, because it is not a padding string -->
as the hash output. In case of IPv4, the first 4
octets contain the IPv4 source address followed by the hexadecimal value
0x878FE1F3 repeated (L-4)/4 times. In case of IPv6, the first 16 octets
contain the IPv6 source address followed by the hexadecimal value
0x878FE1F3 repeated (L-16)/4 times. This implies that hash output is
always a length of at least 16 octets. <vspace blankLines="1"/></t>
<section title="Preparing the Cryptographic Key">
<t>The LDP Cryptographic Protocol ID is appended to the Authentication
Key (K) yielding a Protocol Specific Authentication Key (Ks). In this
application, Ko is always L octets long.
Keys that are longer than the bit length of the hash function are hashed to force them
to this length, as we describe below.
<!-- discussion about longer keys removed. we are simply following RFC 2104. -->
Ks is computed as follows:</t>
<t>If the Protocol Specific Authentication Key (Ks) is L octets long,
then Ko is equal to Ks. If the Protocol Specific Authentication Key
(Ks) is more than L octets long, then Ko is set to H(Ks). If the
Protocol Specific Authentication Key (Ks) is less than L octets long,
then Ko is set to the Protocol Specific Authentication Key (Ks) with
zeros appended to the end of the Protocol Specific Authentication Key
(Ks) such that Ko is L octets long.</t>
<t> For higher entropy it is RECOMMENDED that Key Ks
should be at least L octets long.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Computing the Hash">
<t>First, the Authentication Data field in the Cryptographic
Authentication TLV is filled with the value AuthTag. Then, to compute
HMAC over the Hello message it performs:</t>
<t>AuthData = HMAC(Ko, Hello Message)</t>
<t>Hello Message refers to the LDP Hello message excluding the IP
and the UDP headers.</t>
</section>
<section title="Result">
<t>The resultant Hash becomes the Authentication Data that is sent in
the Authentication Data field of the Cryptographic Authentication TLV.
The length of the Authentication Data field is always identical to the
message digest size of the specific hash function H that is being
used.</t>
<t>This also means that the use of hash functions with larger output
sizes will also increase the size of the LDP message as transmitted on
the wire.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Processing Hello Message Using Cryptographic Authentication">
<section title="Transmission Using Cryptographic Authentication">
<t>Prior to transmitting the Hello message, the Length in the
Cryptographic Authentication TLV header is set as per the
authentication algorithm that is being used. It is set to 24 for
HMAC-SHA-1, 36 for HMAC-SHA-256, 52 for HMAC-SHA-384 and 68 for
HMAC-SHA-512.</t>
<t>The Security Association ID field is set to the ID of the current
authentication key. The HMAC Hash is computed as explained in Section
3. The resulting Hash is stored in the Authentication Data field prior
to transmission. The authentication key MUST NOT be carried in the
packet.</t>
</section>
<section title="Receipt Using Cryptographic Authentication">
<t>The receiving LSR applies acceptability criteria for received
Hellos using cryptographic authentication. If the Cryptographic
Authentication TLV is unknown to the receiving LSR, the received
packet MUST be discarded according to Section 3.5.1.2.2 of <xref
target="RFC5036"/>.</t>
<t>The receiving LSR locates the LDP SA using the Security Association
ID field carried in the message. If the SA is not found, or if the SA
is not valid for reception (i.e., current time < KeyStartAccept or
current time >= KeyStopAccept), LDP Hello message MUST be
discarded, and an error event SHOULD be logged.</t>
<t>If the cryptographic sequence number in the LDP packet is less than
or equal to the last sequence number received from the same neighbor,
the LDP message MUST be discarded, and an error event SHOULD be
logged.</t>
<t>Before the receiving LSR performs any processing, it needs to save
the values of the Authentication Data field. The receiving LSR then
replaces the contents of the Authentication Data field with AuthTag,
computes the Hash, using the authentication key specified by the
received Security Association ID field, as explained in Section 3. If
the locally computed Hash is equal to the received value of the
Authentication Data field, the received packet is accepted for other
normal checks and processing as described in <xref target="RFC5036"/>.
Otherwise, if the locally computed Hash is not equal to the received
value of the Authentication Data field, the received packet MUST be
discarded, and an error event SHOULD be logged. The foresaid logging
need to be carefully rate limited, since while a LDP router is under
attack of a storm of spoofed hellos, the resource taking for logging
could be overwelming.</t>
<t>After the LDP Hello message has been successfully authenticated,
implementations MUST store the 64-bit cryptographic sequence number
for the Hello message received from the neighbor. The saved
cryptographic sequence numbers will be used for replay checking for
subsequent packets received from the neighbor.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>Section 1 of this document describes the security issues arising from
the use of unauthenticated LDP Hello messages. In order to address those
issues, it is RECOMMENDED that all deployments use the Cryptographic
Authentication TLV to authenticate the Hello messages.</t>
<t>The quality of the security provided by the Cryptographic
Authentication TLV depends completely on the strength of the
cryptographic algorithm in use, the strength of the key being used, and
the correct implementation of the security mechanism in communicating
LDP implementations. Also, the level of security provided by the
Cryptographic Authentication TLV varies based on the authentication type
used.</t>
<t>It should be noted that the authentication method described in this
document is not being used to authenticate the specific originator of a
packet but is rather being used to confirm that the packet has indeed
been issued by a router that has access to the Authentication Key.</t>
<t>Deployments SHOULD use sufficiently long and random values for the
Authentication Key so that guessing and other cryptographic attacks on
the key are not feasible in their environments. In support of
these recommendations, management systems SHOULD support hexadecimal
input of Authentication Keys.</t>
<t>The mechanism described herein is not perfect .
However, this mechanism introduces a significant increase in
the effort required for an adversary to successfully attack the LDP
Hello protocol while not causing undue implementation, deployment, or
operational complexity.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>The IANA is requested to as assign a new TLV from the "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub- registry.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[Value Meaning Reference
----- -------------------------------- ---------
TBD1 Cryptographic Authentication TLV this document (sect 2.3)
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The IANA is also requested to as assign value from the
"Authentication Cryptographic Protocol ID", registry under the "Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Parameters"
category.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Value Meaning Reference
----- -------------------------------- ---------
TBD2 LDP Cryptographic Protocol ID this document (sect 4)
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t> We are indebted to Yaron Sheffer who helped us enormously
in rewriting the draft to get rid of the redundant
crypto mathematics that we had added here.
</t>
<t>We would also like to thank Liu Xuehu for his work on background
and motivation for LDP Hello authentication. And last but not the least,
we would also thank Adrian Farrel, Eric Rosen, Sam Hartman, Stephen Farrell,
Eric Gray, Kamran Raza and Acee Lindem for their valuable comments.</t>
<!-- minor copyedit -->
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5036'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5709'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5310'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4822'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.7166'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2104'?>
<reference anchor="FIPS-180-3">
<front>
<title>Secure Hash Standard (SHS), FIPS PUB 180-3</title>
<author fullname="National Institute of Standards and Technology">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="October" year="2008"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="FIPS-198">
<front>
<title>The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC), FIPS PUB
198</title>
<author fullname="US National Institute of Standards & Technology">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="March" year="2002"/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5082'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5926'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6720'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6952'?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 08:34:08 |