<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->


<!DOCTYPE rfc  [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">

]>


<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-kompella-lsr-mptecap-01" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5073" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="MPTE Cap">Multipath Traffic Engineering Capabilities</title>

    <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="Kireeti Kompella">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Sunnyvale</city>
          <region>California</region>
          <code>94089</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>kireeti.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026"/>

    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>LSR WG</workgroup>
    <keyword>multipath, traffic engineering, node capabilities</keyword>

    <abstract>


<?line 35?>

<t>Multipath Traffic Engineering (MPTE) combines two approaches to traffic 
management: equal-cost multipath and constraint-based traffic engineering, 
offering a powerful new way to engineer networks.  To avail of this, a node 
(possibly an ingress of a MPTE tunnel, or a path computation 
agent) must have information about the topology, link and node 
characteristics of a network so that it can compute the components of 
the MPTE tunnel.  One important (node) characteristic is whether a given 
node supports MPTE, i.e., whether it can participate in the provisioning 
and maintenance of the tunnel.</t>

<t>This memo shows how this information can be distributed in the IGP via
Link State Routing TE Capabilities.</t>



    </abstract>



  </front>

  <middle>


<?line 50?>

<section anchor="intro"><name>Introduction</name>

<t><xref target="I-D.kompella-teas-mpte"/> introduces the notion of multipath traffic 
engineering (MPTE).  It describes how an entity (MPTE DAG computer or MC) can 
compute a directed acyclic graph (DAG) from one or more ingress nodes to one
or more egress nodes that meets given traffic engineering (TE) constraints. 
This entity (usually one of the ingresses, or a path computation engine) will
need information about the network to do the computation, most of which is
available in IGP TE extensions.  Once the computation is done, the MC 
communicates the result to the signaling source (SS) which then signals (or 
provisions) the MPTE tunnel via one of the following protocols: RSVP-TE <xref target="RFC3209"/>,
PCEP <xref target="RFC5440"/> or BGP <xref target="RFC4271"/>.</t>

<t>One key piece of information that is not currently in the IGP extensions is whether 
or not a given node supports MPTE, i.e., is capable of sending and receiving MPTE 
updates that create and maintain the tunnel.  An MPTE tunnel cannot be setup 
through such a node, and thus the MC has to take this into account.  This memo fills 
this gap.</t>

<section anchor="terminology"><name>Terminology</name>

<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
These words may also appear in this document in
lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.
<?line -8?></t>

<section anchor="definition-of-commonly-used-terms"><name>Definition of Commonly Used Terms</name>

<t>This section provides definitions for terms and abbreviations that have a specific meaning to the MPTE protocol and that are used throughout this memo.</t>

<dl>
  <dt>constraints:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>desired properties of paths between ingresses and egresses.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>directed acyclic graph:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>a directed graph that has no cycles.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>directed graph (DAG):</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>a set of nodes and directed links. A network is represented by a directed graph.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>egress:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>an end node of an MPTE DAG.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>ingress:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>a starting node of an MPTE DAG.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>link:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>A (directed) edge between two nodes. A pair of nodes may have 0 or more links between them. A link between nodes u and v will be denoted by (u, v, i), where i is u's oif for the link. A link may have associated attributes, in particular, a metric.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>MPTE:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>multipath TE with constraints that uses multiple paths from one or more ingresses to one or more egresses.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>MPTED:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>an MPTE DAG result of computation on MPTE constraints.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>MPTED computer (MC):</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>the entity computing the MPTED, typically the ingress (if there is a single ingress) or a Path Computation Element</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>MPTEP:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>MPTE protocol: the protocol used to signal MPTEDs.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>MPTE tunnel:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>the signaled entity that carries the traffic from ingresses to egresses along the MPTED.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>node:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>a vertex of a graph. A node may have associated attributes.</t>
  </dd>
</dl>

<t>PCEP:
Path Computation Element communication protocol.</t>

<dl>
  <dt>signaling source (SS):</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>the initiator of MPTE signaling to establish, update or destroy an MPTE tunnel.</t>
  </dd>
  <dt>TE:</dt>
  <dd>
    <t>traffic engineering</t>
  </dd>
</dl>

</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="mpte-capabilities"><name>MPTE Capabilities</name>

<t><xref target="RFC5073"/> describes IGP protocol extension for the discovery of the TE capabilities of
a node.  This memo extends that with three new capabilities: whether a node is capable of
processing MPTE RSVP-TE messages, and whether a node is capable of processing MPTE PCEP
messages.  The two capabilities are as follows:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>MR bit: when set, this flag indicates that the node can process MPTE RSVP-TE messages.</t>
  <t>MP bit: when set, this flag indicates that the node can process MPTE PCEP messages.</t>
  <t>MB bit: when set, this flag indicates that the node can process MPTE BGP messages.</t>
</list></t>

<t>These bits are encoded in the TE Node Capability Descriptor defined in <xref target="RFC5073"/>.<br />
This Descriptor is carried in ISIS and OSPF as defined in the same RFC.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations"><name>IANA Considerations</name>

<t>IANA is asked to allocate three bits for the above capabilities in the Link State Routing TE Capabilities registry.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name>

<t>This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV in IS-IS and OSPF to be used for MPLS-TE path
computation.  As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing.  Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation.  Mechanisms defined to secure IS-IS Link
State PDUs <xref target="RFC3567"/>, OSPF LSAs <xref target="RFC2154"/>, and their TLVs can be used
to secure this TLV as well.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>


<references title='References' anchor="sec-combined-references">

    <references title='Normative References' anchor="sec-normative-references">




<reference anchor="I-D.kompella-teas-mpte">
   <front>
      <title>Multipath Traffic Engineering</title>
      <author fullname="Kireeti Kompella" initials="K." surname="Kompella">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Luay Jalil" initials="L." surname="Jalil">
         <organization>Verizon</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Mazen Khaddam" initials="M." surname="Khaddam">
         <organization>Cox Communications</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname="Andy Smith" initials="A." surname="Smith">
         <organization>Oracle Cloud Infrastructure</organization>
      </author>
      <date day="7" month="July" year="2025"/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Shortest path routing offers an easy-to-understand, easy-to-implement
   method of establishing loop-free connectivity in a network, but
   offers few other features.  Equal-cost multipath (ECMP), a simple
   extension, uses multiple equal-cost paths between any two points in a
   network: at any node in a path (really, Directed Acyclic Graph),
   traffic can be (typically equally) load-balanced among the next hops.
   ECMP is easy to add on to shortest path routing, and offers a few
   more features, such as resiliency and load distribution, but the
   feature set is still quite limited.

   Traffic Engineering (TE), on the other hand, offers a very rich
   toolkit for managing traffic flows and the paths they take in a
   network.  A TE network can have link attributes such as bandwidth,
   colors, risk groups and alternate metrics.  A TE path can use these
   attributes to include or avoid certain links, increase path
   diversity, manage bandwidth reservations, improve service experience,
   and offer protection paths.  However, TE typically doesn&#x27;t offer
   multipathing as the tunnels used to implement TE usually take a
   single path.

   This memo proposes multipath traffic-engineering (MPTE), combining
   the best of ECMP and TE.  The multipathing proposed here need not be
   strictly equal-cost, nor the load balancing equally weighted to each
   next hop.  Moreover, the desired destination may be reachable via
   multiple egresses.  The proposal includes a protocol for signaling
   MPTE paths using various types of tunnels, some of which are better
   suited to multipathing.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-kompella-teas-mpte-01"/>
   
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
  <front>
    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
    <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
    <date month="March" year="1997"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174">
  <front>
    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
    <date month="May" year="2017"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5073">
  <front>
    <title>IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities</title>
    <author fullname="J.P. Vasseur" initials="J.P." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
    <author fullname="J.L. Le Roux" initials="J.L." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
    <date month="December" year="2007"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node capabilities. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5073"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5073"/>
</reference>



    </references>

    <references title='Informative References' anchor="sec-informative-references">



<reference anchor="RFC3209">
  <front>
    <title>RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels</title>
    <author fullname="D. Awduche" initials="D." surname="Awduche"/>
    <author fullname="L. Berger" initials="L." surname="Berger"/>
    <author fullname="D. Gan" initials="D." surname="Gan"/>
    <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." surname="Li"/>
    <author fullname="V. Srinivasan" initials="V." surname="Srinivasan"/>
    <author fullname="G. Swallow" initials="G." surname="Swallow"/>
    <date month="December" year="2001"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3209"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3209"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5440">
  <front>
    <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
    <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
    <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
    <date month="March" year="2009"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4271">
  <front>
    <title>A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)</title>
    <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Rekhter"/>
    <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
    <author fullname="S. Hares" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Hares"/>
    <date month="January" year="2006"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.</t>
      <t>The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.</t>
      <t>BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.</t>
      <t>This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4271"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4271"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3567">
  <front>
    <title>Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication</title>
    <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." surname="Li"/>
    <author fullname="R. Atkinson" initials="R." surname="Atkinson"/>
    <date month="July" year="2003"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the authentication of Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Protocol Data Units (PDUs) using the Hashed Message Authentication Codes - Message Digest 5 (HMAC-MD5) algorithm as found in RFC 2104. IS-IS is specified in International Standards Organization (ISO) 10589, with extensions to support Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) described in RFC 1195. The base specification includes an authentication mechanism that allows for multiple authentication algorithms. The base specification only specifies the algorithm for cleartext passwords. This document proposes an extension to that specification that allows the use of the HMAC-MD5 authentication algorithm to be used in conjunction with the existing authentication mechanisms. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3567"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3567"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC2154">
  <front>
    <title>OSPF with Digital Signatures</title>
    <author fullname="S. Murphy" initials="S." surname="Murphy"/>
    <author fullname="M. Badger" initials="M." surname="Badger"/>
    <author fullname="B. Wellington" initials="B." surname="Wellington"/>
    <date month="June" year="1997"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This memo describes the extensions to OSPF required to add digital signature authentication to Link State data, and to provide a certification mechanism for router data. Added LSA processing and key management is detailed. A method for migration from, or co-existence with, standard OSPF V2 is described. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2154"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2154"/>
</reference>



    </references>

</references>



  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIADDlpWkAA61Y3XLbuBW+x1NgnYvaM5LG9jqbRNNpqrWdrBv/qJa9nU6n
04FISMKYBLgEKK2a8bv0Wfpk/c4BSFFZJ73ZG1sEgfP7nXM+cDgcimBCocfy
pimCqVRYyYdaLRYmk5d2aazWtbFLea4qNTeFCUZ7oebzWq9xZPpwSW9E7jKr
SgjJcTQMn1xZ6aJQw8LXw7IKOlPV8PhE5Cpgz+nx6Q8iw8+lq7dj6UMumope
+bF8ffzmeyFeSTf3rtC0JExVj2WoGx9Oj4/fHZ8KH2qtyrG8unz4IBR+j+W9
awKsFBtXPy1r11RjeT27l3/7KJ42Y1m2ng0gJ7qmd64NpHW5llnfQehQNv+X
KpyFwVusVGYs/xFcNpDe1TBg4fFrW9KPfwqhmrBy9VhIOZTGwo9PI/kpBQGL
UsbofDK11sHsv3L1UlnzbxWMs2P5l8aaStfyVgdyxvOWzAQEatZYu12rQvNa
rZd84FwVZuFqa6K0DL6M5buz47fv0nNjA4X50ZqgczkLFGjpFnJSwv0sntKl
MsVYPkX7RkaHxZ+XtDbKXCmEdXUJ+9Z6LISxi97TEPihP1LNkRaVBSG+jaND
wswRzCrnWPMSXkpVVbVT2YoeXZciUSqrlrrUNoyl/qVRxTBzPuyyKZEiCLKk
2NgwnCsPB1/MsHCLRdSvZOU2ul40hbR6IzdqSzrbzViLYR9J+QDD1ggBxSqs
DPKtIlLEYeW8N/NiCwuQ7mWtPUdUxYIIyJMuBkgsaSND4W3VBM6wFPDJhiO4
AV9Waq1lF1G8VXMgGeo0rKpc4ZbbgSyMfWJfo/ZspSjQcMcHkyXFyW6AE4dV
kCYA0DYp1iyQfgPONvARQUs9c+HwnYUt2FMD+0EekjYkak+bNF5uVhpnybcl
MACH2CzfVHTSs8yBNCM9GnRbkzWVqiGDckdOs1FI/Np4eE65EeRkSbnUVtlM
x8jr1kIhHpAGWerSSb9yGy/xh1OzF0LSNNcyh8G1mTcE+qTs6uNUrlEn1xRQ
LoS2ccjYx7oGMIqgLk2eo9zQj65QRC5vMtbw+ZWhx2chPn/+7mp4Mer6XdDK
c8N7fpYmHSFUQ7l1fBYu7QDcQV3/pkKQj6sgc+0zOKGjq3AM6UMviHvkxeRj
m+Ga0HZzfsTeizbtClGodUYhUNk2K6BqWatqJQ9x9EgualdKQILOlq7WHZYp
o1yLeCnal3rvHYGsRLPwCQUvlJ08jJXeFiiKKmawdaLxKGpUEZsQU50s0P5r
5RPlH8mNKQoBRflXyqctCDiRuw7/ScoAHqH6oHOzMtkKqBZc6mpeMDIJKIiv
/hVAJHB6ro5MfymHyiGH9QN+cXPOkS/RwTNusrQIb5Bu7mt48mZp0a8RG++a
GgIPZ7OjZATe27TBy0N4L7ri8Efyi3IlHPfjtnBF4TYkGIcwplyBIXQ/+3k6
xJHPn9/ffzj//vT43fPzQEzPL6dp6fXZ2TGQCl0/fmzXzk7fnDw/owCoHTzp
rayMjqXYD3RsMoQGlHZT10gpEtmrs13s+j2DwERH2t7x9daBQzyRC1bttc25
e6NBANDarOmJ49Fyh2hSBjpAwG8biUomdU1uYvfCiHIhe9AvvA5NRW0R9GG5
glFISWz4AxYXVo1v07xScVKpJ932HzyqjIctjY6uTy0AU09SsbBUFcL66pV8
0HVpLHd36mkxzEBr7uXBzePs4WAQ/8vbO/59f/nXx6v7ywv6Pftpcn3d/RBp
x+ynu8fri92v3cnzu5uby9uLeBircm9JHNxM/n4QHTy4mz5c3d1Org9iHhnb
WUPzV4JlkcNzqg40m6rW3FO8aBsU99gfz6f//c/JGYD0HYB0enICvKWHtydv
zvAAHNiozVngJT4iqFsBDqBVTVLQEij1JqAOsNdzr7cS8NEjipbXKVYlZjf2
MH9IZ/etNlYUNOwhDocgqSoID6AjhfGrKGVAzIU2wwpD4EzcBulTNJQwCv74
HhWr5fDt+z8Jyt8reaEXBnQq9fNz1Dy780j8g5Lr06jyOg4MLmRqm3l30KNk
axloM8cjUmqj4jvGMpMDJX2lM0OtNVnU9hKGcVvtCaIqpqphIhSRHBtiwiPw
1+vHYzGmCYMRkZMg0E6afeQStV2PdIeN1nbXlFmLTg+Q9fJ0IbG9yRMnTvKI
Ooakzfvne1MpnkY1kh1x2JDWbiuxIfTjSdfh4VqtgUjKIt7Pt79RDk3RaJZN
MyRxKaJOqR9A9YjI7W4fLibEVxDwl/eSIbRxIg9bdUdS50vdxY24LXtA5lYK
8OpcIuxyfo+74cuO7c6udEnHmPy1i/FswwFZ8whkpqPRwqLnh81ArtE8j5h7
0USn8DR/QFLNIiJuFTV1sjtLlPcuAwApnSFRJ5SHaXlbU6iaOHCp8TJDACgW
FIAdn0FsNoYHdoexmPiGwBP3oaFHdH2NfXTMQ+4zD0YM6bxIaew4UJqxCG5/
Nru0o09AkoAdazoEZyJxFJZES+I7LrRUZRfoUdsKQ53ISo+lyEPD05ds9wQY
rBfd26PIYKYUmPOeXZcF32miKVNSvlfJ45YXx7qOpewSMYjmtH6kIdbaH7dg
e3IkDkRV1yZxkZajceT3oq27AseNt+f4SDC7j/WwRn/Qv8b7RqwrqkKqjW9j
CEKIc4zF10Ihd6wpdUv2Hede5Eutv9xJVXBcVhyP3XbyCfU7p0Y/kJEiUD5Q
P2Dl2w4+u6sFQ/kFFkvsv/3O0ftAEMcafa7AWNvRdKI+Xe46DtRVHi4lmUMc
ty1vI3z25GJZRNKxxyJYUJ5qiSsMzV1rvsH2j497lzNOzB6LIj6J24jvqFPL
D0ss4lbq42T+lgj5pQhKrGjPs82a296eUzSSlE8c1dNXA3lzL+cmsL2Wmv0g
zqhFoZbIa94RaJXYfPxCY1v9L9s/YsnT30Eyc+R9sT/+DmKJZfekRjIDsTFE
2tLHm+62iv23JKXD3Ra8g3BWBQYymETc3IciUhCpR28rZ5C6AO++ml3NOM93
s+kHSktPEncRVeJa/OF8xNfeye0EFQsQ57qO3EQIXqSG559ib0JfdOR/QiU7
1CIeN7L1/se1VtH/v4XzNy7U65ZtmWlcNCgKX9rzsEf6El1KLQ/NP9Dqrty+
iKnoBerh+ucYoWE/RJH3ch8mp26m1zMCHQ0x0Zs3dLfwERQsJ96NumMkaW86
Ja5ZiDo6H++QvWtT60jO1Df2V5CnyDWkXizoHyRdTVsRVH+qrOLlO7WJZM6u
Q9ve0fSBTvQ/0O27dKOzFVinL3c4oWFEqdApUJRHEfM4vXj07W3z9Q9vcNuM
IbyeTdr105PXZ7Qe+SpRbpjn2482FC6xU9CZD5hudIE+/T9fT6QssBYAAA==

-->

</rfc>

