One document matched: draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Charny
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational F. Huang
Expires: April 29, 2010 Huawei Technologies
G. Karagiannis
U. Twente
M. Menth
University of Wuerzburg
T. Taylor, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
October 26, 2009
PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of
Operation
draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
Precongestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting quality of
service for inelastic traffic admitted to a Diffserv domain. The
overall PCN architecture is described in RFC 5559. This memo is one
of a series describing possible boundary node behaviours for a PCN
domain. The behaviour described here is that for three-state
measurement-based load control, known informally as Controlled Load
(CL).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Assumed Core Network Behaviour for CL . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Node Behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Flow Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Flow Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Reporting the PCN Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Behaviour at the Decision Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Flow Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Flow Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Behaviour of the Ingress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Identifying Ingress-Egress-Aggregates and Their Edge Points . 9
5. Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Technical Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Example Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
1. Introduction
The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the
quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain,
in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion. Two mechanisms are used:
admission control, to decide whether to admit or block a new flow
request, and (in abnormal circumstances) flow termination to decide
whether to terminate some of the existing flows. To achieve this,
the overall rate of PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the
domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain
configured rates are exceeded. These configured rates are below the
rate of the link thus providing notification to boundary nodes about
overloads before any congestion occurs (hence the "pre" part of pre-
congestion notification). The level of marking allows boundary nodes
to make decisions about whether to admit or terminate. For more
details see [RFC5559].
Boundary node behaviours specify a detailed set of algorithms and
edge node behaviours used to implement the PCN mechanisms. Since the
algorithms depend on specific metering and marking behaviour at the
interior nodes, it is also necessary to specify the assumptions made
about interior node behaviour. Finally, because PCN uses DSCP values
to carry its markings, a specification of boundary node behaviour
must include the per domain behaviour (PDB) template specified in
[RFC3086], filled out with the appropriate content. The present
document accomplishes these tasks for the controlled load (CL) mode
of operation.
Some aspects of this specification are necessary for
interoperability, while others are simply suggestions. This document
attempts to make the distinction as it proceeds.
1.1. Terminology
RFC 2119 requirements language does not seem appropriate for an
Informational document. This document uses three levels of
requirement:
o "must" applies to requirements that affect the integrity of
operation of the complete system;
o "recommended" applies to procedures that appear to give superior
results at time of writing, but may be replaced by other
procedures directed to the same objective without affecting the
integrity of operation of the complete system;
o "suggested" applies to procedures that are not seen as superior at
time of writing, but appear to be valid approaches for meeting a
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
particular objective.
In addition to the terms defined in [RFC5559], this document uses the
following terms:
decision point
The node that makes the decision about which flows to admit and to
terminate. In a given network deployment, this may be the ingress
node or a centralized control node. Of course, regardless of the
location of the decision point, the ingress node is the point
where the decisions are enforced.
PCN-admission-state
The state ("admit" or "block") derived by the PCN-egress-node for
a given ingress-egress-aggregate based on PCN packet marking
statistics. The decision point decides to admit or block new
flows offered to the aggregate based on the current value of the
PCN-admission-state. For further details see Section 3.2.1 and
Section 3.3.1.
Congestion level estimate (CLE)
A value derived from the measurement of PCN packets received at a
PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate, representing
the ratio of marked to total PCN traffic (measured in octets) over
a short period. This specification suggests that the CLE be
calculated as an exponentially weighted moving average of the
ratios observed in successive fixed-length measurement intervals,
but the exact algorithms used are not critical to
interoperability. For further details see Section 3.2.1.
Admission decision threshold
A fractional value to which the CLE is compared to determine the
PCN-admission-state. If the CLE is below the admission decision
threshold the PCN-admission-state is set to "admit". If the CLE
is above the admission decision threshold the PCN-admission-state
is set to "block". For further details see Section 3.2.1.
2. Assumed Core Network Behaviour for CL
This section describes the assumed behaviour for nodes of the PCN-
domain when acting in their role as PCN-interior-nodes. The CL mode
of operation assumes that:
o encoding of PCN status within individual packets is based on
[ID.PCN-baseline], extended to provide a third PCN encoding state.
Possible extensions for this purpose are documented in
[ID.PCN3state] or alternatively [ID.PCN3in1];
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
o the domain satisfies the conditions specified in the applicable
encoding extension document;
o each link has been configured with a PCN-threshold-rate having a
value equal to the PCN-admissible-rate for the link;
o each link has been configured with a PCN-excess-rate having a
value equal to the PCN-supportable-rate for the link;
o PCN-interior-nodes perform threshold-marking and excess-traffic-
marking of packets according to the rules specified in
[ID.PCN-marking], and any additional rules specified in the
applicable encoding extension document;
According to [ID.PCN-baseline], the encoding extension documents
should specify the allowable transitions between marking states.
However, to be absolutely clear, these allowable transitions are
specified here. At any interior node, the only permitted transitions
are these:
o a PCN packet which is not-marked (NM) MAY be threshold-marked
(ThM) or excess-traffic-marked (ETM);
o a PCN packet which is threshold-marked (ThM) MAY be excess-
traffic-marked (ETM).
An interior node MUST NOT re-mark a packet from PCN to non-PCN, or
vice versa.
3. Node Behaviours
3.1. Overview
The Controlled Load (CL) mode of operation supports flow admission
based on the ratio of threshold-marked to total PCN-traffic observed
by the PCN-egress-node (the congestion level estimate, see
Section 1.1) for each ingress-egress-aggregate. The PCN-egress-node
reports the latest value of the PCN-admission-state to the decision
point at regular intervals. The decision point decides to admit or
block new PCN flows offered to a given ingress-egress-aggregate based
on the PCN-admission-state.
Flow termination is triggered when the PCN-egress-node observes
excess-traffic-marked packets within a given ingress-egress-
aggregate. When this happens, the PCN-egress-node reports not only
the PCN-admission-state, but also an estimate of the current edge-to-
edge supportable rate of PCN traffic. The decision point interprets
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
the presence of this rate in the report as an indication that flow
termination is required. The amount of traffic to be terminated is
calculated as the difference between the rate of admitted PCN traffic
measured at the PCN-ingress-node and the estimated supportable rate.
The decision point selects previously-admitted flows within the
affected ingress-egress-aggregate for termination until no more
excess-marked packets are observed at the PCN-egress-node.
When Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) routing is operating in the network,
it is possible that some flows within a given ingress-egress-
aggregate pass through the bottleneck that is resulting in excess-
traffic-marking, while others do not. To ensure that the right set
of flows is terminated, the PCN-egress-node supplies a list of
excess-traffic-marked flows along with its estimate of the edge-to-
edge supportable PCN traffic rate. The decision point should look
first to this list when deciding which flows to terminate.
3.2. Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node
The PCN-egress-node must meter received PCN traffic in order to
derive periodically the following rates for each ingress-egress-
aggregate passing through it:
o NM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-unmarked packets;
o ThM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-threshold-marked
packets;
o ETM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-excess-marked
packets.
This specification recommends that the interval between calculation
of these quantities be in the range of 100 to 500ms to provide a
reasonable tradeoff between signalling demands on the network and the
time taken to react to impending congestion.
This specification suggests that PCN-traffic be metered continuously,
that the counts of the number of octets of PCN traffic needed to
calculate the above rates be accumulated continuously throughout the
interval, and that the intervals themselves be of equal length, to
minimize the statistical variance introduced by the measurement
process itself.
3.2.1. Flow Admission
Each time the egress node has calculated the rates listed above, the
egress node must calculate a ratio R of marked to total traffic. If
all of the rates are zero for the interval, the ratio R must be set
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
to zero. Otherwise, the egress node must calculate the ratio as:
R = (ThM-rate + ETM-rate) / (NM-rate + ThM-rate + ETM-rate).
The egress node must then use this ratio to update a congestion level
estimate (CLE, see Section 1.1).
Exponential smoothing is suggested for this purpose, so that
updated CLE = w*R + (1-w)*previous CLE.
The value of w depends on the length of the measurement interval: for
the equivalent system memory, a shorter interval calls for a smaller
smoothing constant. Simulation results
([I-D.babiarz-pcn-explicit-marking],
[I-D.zhang-pcn-performance-evaluation]) show that the effectiveness
of PCN is not sensitive to the specific value of w used.
The egress node now compares the updated CLE against a decision
threshold. If the CLE is less than the threshold, the PCN-admission-
state for the ingress-egress-aggregate is determined to be "admit",
otherwise it is determined to be "block".
Simulation results ([I-D.zhang-pcn-performance-evaluation] and
[Menth08f]) show that the process is also not sensitive to the
value of the decision threshold.
3.2.2. Flow Termination
If the PCN-egress-node observes any excess-traffic-marked packets for
a given ingress-egress-aggregate, it must immediately set aside the
measurements it has accumulated and begin a new measurement interval.
In addition, it must send a report to the decision point indicating
that the PCN-admission-state is "block"
If the measurement data being set aside represent more than half
of the normal calculation interval, it is suggested that the PCN-
egress-node perform the end-of-interval calculations described in
the previous section and report the PCN-admission-state value thus
obtained before starting the new interval.
Restarting the measurement interval ensures that the estimate of
edge-to-edge supportable rate described below is not biased by
lower PCN traffic rates prevailing before the onset of excess-
traffic-marking.
For subsequent intervals, as long as the calculated rate of excess-
marked traffic is greater than zero, the PCN-egress-node must
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
calculate and report to the decision point an estimate of the edge-
to-edge supportable traffic rate for PCN traffic as well as the
latest PCN-admission-state. It is recommended that this estimate be
calculated as the sum:
NM-rate + ThM-rate.
In networks with multipath routing (e.g., ECMP in IP networks), the
PCN-egress-node records flow identifiers of the individual flows for
which excess-marked packets have been observed. These will be used
by the decision point when it selects flows for termination.
3.2.3. Reporting the PCN Data
The PCN-egress-node must report the latest value of the PCN-
admission-state to the decision point each time it calculates it. If
flow termination is required (because PCN-excess-marked packets have
been observed), the egress node must also report the estimate of the
supportable edge-to-edge rate of PCN traffic calculated in the
previous section.
If so configured, the PCN-egress-node must also report the set of
flow identifiers of flows for which excess-marked packets were
observed during the calculation interval.
3.3. Behaviour at the Decision Point
3.3.1. Flow Admission
When the decision point (e.g., the PCN-ingress-node) receives a
report indicating that the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-
egress-aggregate is "admit", it admits new flows to that aggregate.
When the decision point receives a report indicating that the PCN-
admission-state for a given ingress-egress-aggregate is "block", it
ceases to admit new flows to that aggregate. These actions may be
modified by policy in specific cases.
3.3.2. Flow Termination
When the report from the egress node includes an estimate of the
edge-to-edge supportable PCN traffic rate for the given ingress-
egress-aggregate, the decision point must fetch the rate at which
PCN-traffic has been admitted to the aggregate from the PCN-ingress-
node. If the rate of admitted traffic is greater than the estimate
of the edge-to-edge supportable PCN traffic rate for the given
ingress-egress-aggregate, the decision point must select flows to
terminate using its knowledge of the bandwidth required by individual
flows gained, e.g., from resource signalling, until it determines
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
that the PCN traffic admission rate will no longer be greater than
the estimated edge-to-edge supportable PCN traffic rate provided by
the egress node.
Flow termination may be spread out over multiple rounds to avoid
over-termination. If this is done, it is recommended that enough
time elapse between successive rounds of termination to allow the
effects of previous rounds to be reflected in the measurements
upon which the termination decisions are based (See
[I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination] and sections 4.2 and 4.3
of [Menth08-sub-9].)
If the egress node has supplied a list of flow identifiers
(Section 3.2.2), the decision point first looks to terminate flows
from that list. Flow selection may be guided by policy in specific
cases.
3.4. Behaviour of the Ingress Node
In a specific deployment, the PCN-ingress-node may be the decision
point. If so, it carries out the procedures described in the
previous section.
Aside from those procedures, the PCN-ingress-node has the
responsibility to provide the rate of admitted PCN traffic (octets
per second) on a specific ingress-egress-aggregate when the decision
point must determine how much flow to terminate in that aggregate.
The rate that the PCN-ingress-node supplies may be based on a quick
sample taken at the time the information is required. It is
recommended that such a sample be based on observation of at least 30
PCN packets to achieve reasonable statistical reliability.
4. Identifying Ingress-Egress-Aggregates and Their Edge Points
The operation of PCN depends on the ability of the ingress and egress
nodes to identify the aggregate to which each flow belongs. The
egress node also needs to associate an aggregate with the address of
the ingress node for receiving reports, if the ingress node is the
decision point.
The means by which this is done depends on the packet routing
technology in use in the network. In general, classification of
individual packets at the ingress node (for enforcement and metering
of admission rates) and at the egress node must use the content of
the outer packet header. The process may well require configuration
of routing information in the ingress and egress nodes. Some cases
will be particularly challenging, as when a packet is carried by an
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
MPLS tunnel through the ingress node to some node short of the egress
node, and then turns into an ordinary IP packet.
5. Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour
This section provides the specification required by [RFC3086] for a
per-domain behaviour.
5.1. Applicability
This section draws heavily upon points made in the PCN architecture
document, [RFC5559].
The PCN CL boundary node behaviour specified in this document is
applicable to inelastic traffic (particularly video and voice) where
quality of service for admitted flows is protected primarily by
admission control at the ingress to the domain. In exceptional
circumstances (e.g. due to network failures) already-admitted flows
may be terminated to protect the quality of service of the remainder.
The CL boundary node behaviour is less likely to terminate too many
flows under such circumstances than the SM boundary node behaviour
([I-D.SM-edge-behaviour]).
5.2. Technical Specification
The technical specification of the PCN CL per domain behaviour is
provided by the contents of [RFC5559], [ID.PCN-baseline],
[ID.PCN-marking], the specification of the encoding extension (e.g.
[ID.PCN3state], [ID.PCN3in1]), and the present document.
5.3. Attributes
TBD -- basically low loss, low jitter. Low delay would be nice but
has to be quantified
5.4. Parameters
TBD. Don't think RFC 3068 is looking for the list of configurable
parameters given in the architecture document.
5.5. Assumptions
Assumed that a specific portion of link capacity has been reserved
for PCN traffic. Assumed that recovery from overloads by flow
termination should happen within 1-3 seconds.
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
5.6. Example Uses
The PCN CL behaviour may be used to carry real-time traffic,
particularly voice and video.
5.7. Environmental Concerns
TBD
5.8. Security Considerations
Please see the security considerations in Section 6 as well as those
in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475].
6. Security Considerations
[RFC5559] provides a general description of the security
considerations for PCN. This memo introduces no new considerations.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
The content of this memo bears a family resemblance to
[ID.briscoe-CL]. The authors of that document were Bob Briscoe,
Philip Eardley, and Dave Songhurst of BT, Anna Charny and Francois Le
Faucheur of Cisco, Jozef Babiarz, Kwok Ho Chan, and Stephen Dudley of
Nortel, Giorgios Karagiannis of U. Twente and Ericsson, and Attila
Bader and Lars Westberg of Ericsson.
Ruediger Geib, Philip Eardley, and Bob Briscoe have helped to shape
the present document with their comments.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[ID.PCN-baseline]
Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information (Work
in progress)", September 2009.
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
[ID.PCN-marking]
Eardley, P., "Metering and marking behaviour of PCN-nodes
(Work in progress)", August 2009.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC5559] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.SM-edge-behaviour]
Charny, A., Zhang, J., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., and T.
Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single
Marking (SM) Mode of Operation (Work in progress)",
October 2009.
[I-D.babiarz-pcn-explicit-marking]
Liu, X. and J. Babiarz, "Simulations Results for 3sM
(expired Internet Draft)", July 2007.
[I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination]
Satoh, D., Ueno, H., and M. Menth, "Performance Evaluation
of Termination in CL-Algorithm (Work in progress)",
July 2009.
[I-D.zhang-pcn-performance-evaluation]
Zhang, X., "Performance Evaluation of CL-PHB Admission and
Termination Algorithms (expired Internet Draft)",
July 2007.
[ID.PCN3in1]
Briscoe, B., "PCN 3-State Encoding Extension in a single
DSCP (Work in progress)", July 2009.
[ID.PCN3state]
Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "A PCN encoding
using 2 DSCPs to provide 3 or more states (Work in
progress)", April 2009.
[ID.briscoe-CL]
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
Briscoe, B., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model for Pre-
Congestion Notification: Admission Control over a
DiffServ Region (expired Internet Draft)", 2006.
[Menth08-sub-9]
Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "PCN-Based Measured Rate
Termination", July 2009, <http://
www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/
papers/Menth08-Sub-9.pdf>.
[Menth08f]
Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "Performance Evaluation of
PCN-Based Admission Control", in Proceedings of the 16th
International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS)",
June 2008, <http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/
~menth/Publications/papers/Menth08f.pdf>.
[RFC3086] Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of
Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for
their Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.
Authors' Addresses
Anna Charny
Cisco Systems
300 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
USA
Email: acharny@cisco.com
Fortune Huang
Huawei Technologies
Section F, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian Longgang, Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
Phone: +86 15013838060
Email: fqhuang@huawei.com
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour October 2009
Georgios Karagiannis
U. Twente
Phone:
Email: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
Michael Menth
University of Wuerzburg
Am Hubland
Wuerzburg D-97074
Germany
Phone: +49-931-888-6644
Email: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Tom Taylor (editor)
Huawei Technologies
1852 Lorraine Ave
Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8
Canada
Phone: +1 613 680 2675
Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net
Charny, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 14]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 04:05:52 |