Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt
"Mudric, Dusan" <dmudric@ciena.com> Fri, 21 August 2020 17:25 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=9502f4ce19=dmudric@ciena.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5303A0E54 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ciena.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXQFClT-k7wa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F1753A0E53 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0222747.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07LHLaYI019647; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:23:50 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ciena.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=06252019; bh=xFSBhoLFahchaYpkqAJER85z3oujoIRrWiQkCOizK3s=; b=oPyc5w9ZBwUrfKYqKeo+ON92v6UV5gs6574Q3T5w75rkiL47YdYHJH//6PmqgcDBz8/L sP6OpkxrylTe4PSlQgPDHlj04qdY3flxWwmoRL4FEekvDGV8VQfAru+Jeh1eGMG3eYwN +H1k5Fm8QGmoRA5v+FlKglCQfavJguJIgFlwnwrFNam/wRHg0TguDcARhV2UrPDLfpsv OoyRjEqCgreo3uE2+/x7Pn35PEpYaTXng++41sXoTiK4SMm1uU8YLBWBY0B4hHg39iYH /IvvflP+0coddnRZVDzGmJH/w651epXoSCiqAu35tqa+C/ZqKWEBvtQBK8TdMRhR+Rh/ vg==
Received: from nam12-bn8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12lp2177.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.55.177]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 331d8xcb90-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:23:50 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OhpxK5mn5eJexcB/YvOZ/RB8ghfM0BYd4v8XIt7OQEBMotlASvkPLC0GYNXmPYbVX1VDqgv1SBkkCNGH/4L8i5ulXGorPr9CeeF1YfxiTjH7yx0U1yIS7ASOdaVGCvvledCFRHdQ/d9wMV1Aru2EWAfWrBhVknXpX+DqOXaAH3jkYvpndBOz9d+pIw9xtGx3cpzzQhTydLPhC/M1HyCOKINPsG8uShbIyc2ZbvHGXR2sgKyKwstUco/rtaaxnTwHPm9h7PvystvKIvyhM0yjbA5tdqctWSw1FIlwzOg9jA8w1SKI/Y1hKyEubc1D3LxmXWpHHKHgXUXsQIP3oahKcw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xFSBhoLFahchaYpkqAJER85z3oujoIRrWiQkCOizK3s=; b=XEmkBDdhMQa1mN7q8tXlb482JG3wwOx175vuwGndKESC+QGNUTbLcx480dreK+Em7/CXaaReb2O98mbuNgqeqlqrGfFlRQvi8BxzHShSK6+O7d2JfTgE2et/Veop9nN3yL2VHsEQ50usnGRb/ZI1wOHo4P7II8jez38ybPFr4/kptrXKEanNsxWhc1L/6zdzUiIfZw8ySkS0WV31aMZPGSFkWvdqybhI+yczYxqbzk/wG++4by5pnYqn7q9H5YT0a7u4bagHaxlGg+1th0z09yQoY4QkiEIsQK1W5DEiCxnA+K3M7TAXLNa85Wfi7xFynKk0DI6/3c3v0255im32mA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ciena.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ciena.com; dkim=pass header.d=ciena.com; arc=none
Received: from DM6PR04MB6459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1e9::15) by DM6PR04MB4219.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:9c::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3305.24; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:23:48 +0000
Received: from DM6PR04MB6459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d457:7534:8f7:5829]) by DM6PR04MB6459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d457:7534:8f7:5829%9]) with mapi id 15.20.3305.026; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:23:48 +0000
From: "Mudric, Dusan" <dmudric@ciena.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
CC: Dusan Mudric <dusan.mudric@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt
Thread-Topic: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWd9/TEUqm+k6icESQ9aA9zEsL2w==
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:23:48 +0000
Message-ID: <320327D8-C90A-49A2-AC48-003ED0C3349C@ciena.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.39.20071300
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ciena.com;
x-originating-ip: [165.225.209.48]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6c9f5a0d-e2c1-4e4c-f43e-08d845f6f717
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR04MB4219:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR04MB42195C972724E7824AC96B2BB55B0@DM6PR04MB4219.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: uKhTLm7iDU5Xwb4GVozN5rC3WCjhJGA2pF7WhUt1HSvr6Ay4MMM5iwwu4ecUGQGfBZxdqBs3S2wCHXDmfM3yOh973HLc1FUGrzbCsYEnU6lA8a3l8z/tvPSDYeJTZh9oQ3HFPWcW+clU48i8h7dleEkPJdPfhIGXVi2TVxBRHXWbaDnfemvqte944By7APRLLb6aLNJ63Ba3mOOfnTJ3phtUOVFcn3UX3Cj+7ZRgKiNWS8T2U2lTuJe5P0yigCdxZrCkHAGGRMz+XS5CFqnBx77BmlBAaUayO6FlZpR5YvMQ4GCz/TqIP9FtQ2fcq8bdulcTNj0+oZuaKc9elXXVho8uP8xY+oPIAcguxh5hJ8HxnBjmGlpLI4/l5CXj6CiuOF8jcxnCNEDQvCLQ6DVEbg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR04MB6459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(478600001)(2906002)(966005)(66946007)(5660300002)(30864003)(8676002)(66476007)(66556008)(76116006)(86362001)(71200400001)(66446008)(91956017)(64756008)(4326008)(6506007)(55236004)(186003)(33656002)(83380400001)(6486002)(15650500001)(110136005)(26005)(8936002)(53546011)(66574015)(316002)(6512007)(36756003)(2616005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <184213F256E79A4B91AE3195F427BEBD@namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ciena.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR04MB6459.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6c9f5a0d-e2c1-4e4c-f43e-08d845f6f717
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Aug 2020 17:23:48.2081 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 457a2b01-0019-42ba-a449-45f99e96b60a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mC0+ArliS+Uk5hArIhpd3nBXMb37ScoZARlVqigcpicblo6n05bhAANNcNVbgONa8f4wcptGnKQcaTDFlPe/PA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR04MB4219
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-21_08:2020-08-21, 2020-08-21 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BuSvvFHqXpxzJURUFH7gCW-Xjpw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:25:45 -0000
> On 2020-08-20, 1:57 PM, "Vasilenko Eduard" > <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote: > >> It is possible to look into "Prefix List" (RFC 4861 terminology), >> If particular PIO was with "L"="Local" bit set, Then it is possible >> to use GUA as destination, but LLA as source. Should work. > [Dusan] rfc6724#section-5, SASA Rule 2 " Rule 2: Prefer appropriate scope. If Scope(SA) < Scope(SB): If Scope(SA) < Scope(D), then prefer SB and otherwise prefer SA. Similarly, if Scope(SB) < Scope(SA): If Scope(SB) < Scope(D), then prefer SA and otherwise prefer SB." prefers the closest Scope(S) to the given destination Scope(D). If D is GUA, a source will selects its S-GUA, rather than S-LLA. Even if it might be possible to make S-LLA - to - D-GUA connection, for security reasons it is preferred that both parties use LLAs for ON-LINK communication. But if I am a Cisco router computer software I can not force a Juniper router computer software to do whatever. If Juniper computer contacts me by using a GUA all I can do is to reply to it using my LLA. I have no way to signal it to tell it 'please use an LLA instead'. This draft is proposing such a new way. So, this draft is saying "I have your GUA destination address but I would like to talk to you using our LLAs. If you agree to give me your LLA, we will talk using our LLAs". >> It is radical departure from 6724: " to prefer destination/source >> address pairs for which the two addresses are of equal scope or >> type ..." > >> I am not sure that any other RFC would not block this approach. I >> do not see any blocking factor. Let's others speak. Yes, I think it is time to see what others think. >> PS: I do not believe that it is possible to map Destination GUA to >> Destination LLA. > [Dusan] The proposed mechanism is to use address resolution for GUA, to obtain Destination LLA, when it is found that a destination GUA is on link. LLA is a Link Local Address, not 'link-layer address' MAC address. Address resolution NA message can be extended to provide D-LLA. That is how a source will learn about destination LL address. The existing address resolution mechanisms (NS/NA) would resolve a link-layer address of a GUA that is used by the same interface on which GUA is attached. The existing address resolution mechanism (NS/NA) does not offer means to obtain the link-local address of an interface of a GUA. This draft is proposing to change the current mechanism to be able to negotiate LLAs. Alex > >> Eduard > -----Original Message----- From: Mudric, Dusan > [mailto:dmudric@ciena.com] Sent: 20 августа 2020 г. 16:08 To: > Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; Vasilenko Eduard > <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; ipv6@ietf.org Cc: Dusan Mudric > <dusan.mudric@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version > Notification for draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt > > > On 2020-08-18, 4:04 PM, "Vasilenko Eduard" > <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Dusan, Hi Alexandere, > > [Alex] Thank you for the reply. We carefully consider the comments. > > We identified a corner case of communicating on the same link. In > this corner case the RFC6724 recommendation creates a security > problem. > > Rather, we recommend to use the least possible scope that is > 'common', i.e. it allows to reach the other. In other words, use a > LL src even if the dst is a GUA (GUA on the same link). > > (maybe the 'least common scope' is not the best. Because by RFC > 4291 "Addr Archi" the LL and GUA are not the same common scope, even > though one might imagine that link scope is included in a 'global' > scope, and thus the least common scope between LL and GUA is the LL > scope; it is a notion borrowed from set theory, an intersection; > another difficulty with 'least common scope' is that Global in GUA is > not a 'scope' but a characteristic of the uniqueness; and 'Global > Unicast' is an address 'type', not a scope. To make things worse, > 'types' of addresses could be more than just LL ang GUA; other > equally legitimate address types are 'unicast', 'multicast' and > 'anycast', and also 'Unspecified', 'Loopback', 'Multicast'; and there > are sub-types too. So, maybe a more precise recommendation would be > to 'use an address type whose scope is the least possible to reach a > given destination', or 'least possibly scoped address type', instead > of 'least common scope'.) > >> RFC 6724 does have big attention to choose addresses with smallest >> scope - section 3.1. > > [Alex] That section 3.1 is about mapping multicast scopes to unicast > scope, in order to give reason to comparing the scopes of unicast. > However, a 1-to-1 mapping between these two scopes is hardly > understandable. In particular, there still exists a site-local > scope for multicast but no longer for unicast. And, there exist a > unicast ULA global scope that is not reachable (it's global in that > it is uniquely global, not because it is globally reachable - > 'reachable' a word not in dictionary anyways :-). So it's hard to > see its multicast counterpart: either it's globally reachable or it's > site-local (cant be both). > > (In a multicast context it's not possible to use a multicast address > in the source of the packets; so in a multicast context one couldn't > talk about same-scope recommendations. Moreover, there should not > be blockage to sending packets of ll scope to global mc scope. _If_ > we had a src multicast possibility then yes, there could have been a > good recommendation of same-scope src-to-dst multicast-to-multicast > packets. But we are not concerned with that here.) > > Because of the impossibility of the mapping that I mention above, > it's impossible to come up with rules of same scope use in unicast > context. And thus the effort of mapping seems without success. > >> Then scope is at the second priority for section 5 "Source Address >> Selection". > > [Alex] Rule 2 might not lead to what we want. The execution of that > rule using input parameters SA==GUA, SB==LL and D==GUA leads to > select SA (a GUA) as src; we dont want GUA in src when the > destination is GUA on the same link. > > [Dusan] It is rather DASA rule 8: Rule 8: Prefer smaller scope. If > Scope(DA) < Scope(DB), then prefer DA. Similarly, if Scope(DA) > > Scope(DB), then prefer DB. > > I think the order of address selection should be: - DASA Rule 8 to > select LL destination address, preferring the smaller scope, and - > SASA Rule 6 will select SA-LL source address that has the same label > as destination DA-LL address > > Section 10.2 example: " Candidate Source Addresses: 2001:db8:1::2 > or fe80::2 Destination Address List: 2001:db8:1::1 or fe80::1 Result: > fe80::1 (src fe80::2) then 2001:db8:1::1 (src 2001:db8:1::2) (prefer > smaller scope)" > > This means a host needs to autodiscover a destination LL address, > before applying DASA Rule 8. The details of this mechanism will be > provided. > >> I have not understood what else you need? IMHO: it is better to >> clearly state what particular sentences in RFC 6724 you would like >> to change or amend. > [Dusan] For ON-LINK D-GUA, SASA cannot be done until On-Link check > and LL address resolution are completed. A socket API in RFC5014 > would get a destination GUA or ULA, and: - Need to do ON-LINK > determination, and - Obtain LL address for ON-LINK destinations (LL > address resolution). Otherwise: - Rule 8 can be updated to check if a > destination (with its DA-GUA and DB-ULA addresses) is ON-LINK, and > obtain and use LL address for ON-LINK destinations. > > The second approach makes SASA dependent on asynchronous > communication with the ON-LINK destination and is not a preferred > choice. If the first approach is used, there is no need to update RFC > 6724. > >> I suspect that finally you would come to the problem how to find >> LLA for particular GUA? > > [Alex] Yes, probably that problem. As a solution, it is not > impossible to find the LLA of a particular interface that is is > present as a field in an entry in a routing table whose first field > covers the GUA ('covers' - as identified by a longest-prefix match > algorithm). > >> even for the case when proper GUA prefix is announced from local >> router with "L" bit set. Because GUA and LLA could have different >> interface ID. > > [Alex] Yes, could. > >> GUA has been fetched from an Active Directory or DNS. > > [Dusan] Or assigned by DHCPv6 (e.g. a destination host server > address) > >> Where to find LLA for the same host?!? Is every host should >> register all their addresses on default router? to find >> correspondence. > > [Dusan] No. > >> What is the protocol to fetch this correspondence? > > [Dusan] Host already have defined on-link determination, RFC 4861. > If DA_GUA prefix: " - is covered by one of the link's prefixes (e.g., > as indicated by the on-link flag in the Prefix Information option)" > "A node considers an address to be on-link". > > The same RFC4861 defines " Address resolution: How nodes > determine the link-layer address of an on-link destination (e.g., a > neighbor) given only the destination's IP address." > > If the DA is ON-LINK, a host can resolve DA not only into the > link-layer address, but, with extensions, into DA_LL address. > >> Nope. It would not fly... Not on this planet. >> >> Correspondence between GUA and ULA is potentially possible to keep >> in Active Directory. It looks like operational recommendation to >> corporate IT: use ULA and populate it into DNS and Active >> Directory with higher priority (if you need GUA at all for internal >> resources); use ULA and GUA for ordinary hosts. > I do not see why >> you need to change RFC 6724 for this - host should automatically >> choose ULA in this scenario. The fact that ULA is more secure is >> not a big secret. > Eduard > > >> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 >> [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Mudric, Dusan >> Sent: 18 августа 2020 г. 16:56 To: ipv6@ietf.org Cc: >> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com Subject: FW: [**EXTERNAL**] New >> Version Notification for > draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt >> >> Hi, >> >> Please provide comments. >> >> Thanks a lot, Dusan. >> >> On 2020-08-18, 9:31 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt has been >> successfully submitted by Dusan Mudric and > posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-mudric-6man-lcs Revision: 00 Title: Least-Common >> Scope Communications Document date: 2020-08-18 Group: Individual >> Submission Pages: 5 URL: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00.txt__;!!OSsGDw!f7qBGY2iA8pCnxJAbIUGbxahnxInuh9WqA0MxmIe6D_mOhy38kXzuv1SQv-G$ > > > > Status: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mudric-6man-lcs/__;!!OSsGDw!f7qBGY2iA8pCnxJAbIUGbxahnxInuh9WqA0MxmIe6D_mOhy38kXzuq3WYxzi$ > > > > Htmlized: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mudric-6man-lcs-00__;!!OSsGDw!f7qBGY2iA8pCnxJAbIUGbxahnxInuh9WqA0MxmIe6D_mOhy38kXzuvX3ounT$ > > > > Htmlized: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mudric-6man-lcs__;!!OSsGDw!f7qBGY2iA8pCnxJAbIUGbxahnxInuh9WqA0MxmIe6D_mOhy38kXzuqfeyVD5$ > > > > > >> >> Abstract: This draft formulates a security problem statement. > The problem >> arises when a Host uses its Global Unicast Address > (GUA) to >> communicate with another Host situated on the same link. >> >> To address this problem, we suggest to select and use > addresses of a >> least scope that are common. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from > the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!OSsGDw!fONP9f1G2DpYm4hiHyFwVVjqExwPBwSwmSlxAzxAgzOnTGru3lZoLcdvdYKG$ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >
- FW: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Mudric, Dusan
- RE: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Mudric, Dusan
- RE: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Mark Smith
- Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Mudric, Dusan
- RE: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [**EXTERNAL**] New Version Notification for d… Alexandre Petrescu