Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 10 August 2020 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9323A0D46; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=JS9McZDg; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Y6xcf+qi
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 ZmtIeut7ywfB; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD4CF3A0A68; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11784; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597091970; x=1598301570; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=BOMV/VDe7mIifa6a6h6CYh95sHbixiIJ7PRpQkxIK1A=; b=JS9McZDgsFWjlBre3PMWf1C7jEQuaaJsKGAAxKUfTJSaFztXUzPwbfoW QM4p4Ck3VAIID2ZnBHH78zwfmPPjCeGewy6ek4bFWNkuC2GObJklKpegj wseU56fs6qzTgKvJDc5+1ZcdQwcZC0WzHtuac7mZ13g9DKQrZH031SPwm 0=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D9EAD7rzFf/4QNJK1gHgEBCxIMQIMcIwYoB29YLywKh?= =?us-ascii?q?CyDRgONKyWYZoFCgREDVQsBAQEMAQEYBg8CBAEBhAhEAheCHwIkOBMCAwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcQEBAQECAQEBEBERDAEBLAsBCwQCAQgOA?= =?us-ascii?q?wQBAQMCJgICAiULFQgIAgQBDQUbB4MEAYJLAw4gAQ6naQKBOYhhdoEygwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QWFCRiCDgMGgQ4qgnCDX4ZAGoIAgREnDBCCTT6BBIFYAQGBKgEMBgEHGoMXM?= =?us-ascii?q?4Itj2QngnSHB4J5iAqRIQqCYohjkTYDFQmCfYlYiCeLFpIugWyIUZBNhCoCB?= =?us-ascii?q?AIEBQIOAQEFgWojZ3BwFRohKgGCPlAXAg2OHwwMC4ECAQqCQYUUhQkBNwF0A?= =?us-ascii?q?jUCBgEHAQEDCXyNXIE0AYEQAQE?=
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AKhTG5hZ9X6eg3/D+Z9v2jU7/LSx94ef9IxIV55?= =?us-ascii?q?w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el21QaZD4fG7fNchvCQta38CiQM4peE5XYFdpEEFx?= =?us-ascii?q?oIkt4fkAFoBsmZQVb6I/jnY21ffoxCWVZp8mv9PR1TH8DzNF/PpHyq4CRUHB?= =?us-ascii?q?jjZkJ5I+3vEdvUiMK6n+m555zUZVBOgzywKbN/JRm7t0PfrM4T1IBjMa02jB?= =?us-ascii?q?DOpyhF?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,458,1589241600"; d="scan'208";a="517356864"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Aug 2020 20:39:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07AKdT8s021594 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:39:29 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:39:29 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:39:28 -0400
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:39:28 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=StbMQA+bcOZ9Wl44Nveel5+czx4+/RNcLRhREmcj1MwzgSkqqrk8EWb20F/0zHL+2XBgBp0JEXK46QGbxXoVTIcZ+AOcgksLYLOsdB20r8UZvVlH/EJ7xYdK7dv9Yi4myEsz82OU5onEnqmULsLodeXxuYe5rS2TUGkuDSmHX5FFH+CW4lpfywlbxvLC7fjP6gDWKYMf03r0i/bDvR2F2AT5rnITpXQYPdvaE5n5CTbrSJDQNjJBjHVU782248ZyBcfnF0LPGNbwG2PvhEBmFTQeph+hx/eSmgY02sDAAAiuRReI6zhyIO2g8IMpGaDS6DE3VknWFDYnesNKqXPFmQ==
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=BOMV/VDe7mIifa6a6h6CYh95sHbixiIJ7PRpQkxIK1A=; b=CtCLd34pPsjBkRionEIRuvNW13rNYXpKL6GY6MpzHKpgMteRye5LyEPE+IUfzMeOZtSnvYyd13ZOCsleR0cd5S7ygaj3jTfrznTX2frV5ndQCmJOeeRviDX8cEdbOV9TGLkJFqFEt2drXEfJr8oXLrCJATxMkg+4P5TM+NiI6MLDzSLnfEW60jgiU+23eIuN3JyFpgrEKdNCF97lU5TbutuwXJQ1PlP11sWCL5yA/YW5rE0vaPCO8UThvvVRL2uWYwQHJMgu8DyheepUFQyuRX92vEYajGWz7oitdkUC4aANznEEP+6kETjC0ArkIkkITfBTJ2RqA7svC7t0lkyLkw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BOMV/VDe7mIifa6a6h6CYh95sHbixiIJ7PRpQkxIK1A=; b=Y6xcf+qixD3t/BPnoJ2y5VFohzWACxHH25kjQPIjigKel8KOYVpFCkpMiKpEqPzlmbTwLAxSOoElxjPm8A0EVd0/aWmCLOysQcl+g8WxkRO5QlEkjwSQ3uW6BvVBMlDBOt4OHqiR9eOVJ/P31yhMy8Puu1Heeedu7eIpKZji/1c=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:89::27) by BY5PR11MB4404.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1c3::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3261.20; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:39:26 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70a6:bb5b:16b:4f9b]) by BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70a6:bb5b:16b:4f9b%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3261.024; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:39:26 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lhotka@nic.cz" <lhotka@nic.cz>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
Thread-Index: AQHWbNHhjFoS+TZQTU6nPSaQ4ny3G6kxjfoAgAAg14D//8zeAIAAUvsA///BSoA=
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:39:26 +0000
Message-ID: <E384A4B4-2823-445D-A89A-94409A1D3F5E@cisco.com>
References: <20200807154534.98486F4074B@rfc-editor.org> <AM7PR07MB62480F112A28FA0B0F068D91A0440@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB43664780B4844ABA07C84D0AB5440@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3073B02B-7413-4C00-ACF1-CA2679C0C949@cisco.com> <57AAC8FB-65D7-40D9-BFE7-B16A7F680C0E@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <57AAC8FB-65D7-40D9-BFE7-B16A7F680C0E@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=42648655-a83a-47dd-85df-00007a4a57df; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-08-10T20:01:11Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Business Use Only;MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true;
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.39.20071300
authentication-results: juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;juniper.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [136.56.133.70]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a678a67a-d294-4d71-2924-08d83d6d7943
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR11MB4404:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR11MB4404595D07F4EABE9FDC70E1C2440@BY5PR11MB4404.namprd11.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: YdVrBdRU590Y3uXgXCAEwiGV7qpjydRQyPrsIgqubWsirXRedAWnoDsNi8HFNKyhvnIDcdPNxoJo+ELfsij2oAmAZmIeUhbjepG+U0ksnl2A7EgRp+TNnSxvYFNRbGK+nOz7tkBabUEElgSLJCcdKV7C03Xi02ulA84Zbj0gDhSL94UuMEiCHbC9zg0gxlMMtmnUZ4oY2pkvUwr8C0RVeJKGrLu0nVjovd7A8UDkCrbvhdoz0b0GwnD1KZVYmjSTLJO/6OSnTR0PavBmqbM/z6pF7/Wq7i/W4kUCj6xP4LTScmHnpDVWsXe5RiYCdC7zI7ociZo1nSCUJHrBREawJjX/lD8j0Prq9vvu5YW4+7NhYSXf1CpKZHXNhRUm/9BDeXvQ+v6ytcTx6oP+IqEWYQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(186003)(53546011)(83380400001)(5660300002)(6506007)(26005)(86362001)(6512007)(478600001)(6486002)(8676002)(66476007)(64756008)(66556008)(66946007)(966005)(2616005)(8936002)(76116006)(66446008)(71200400001)(36756003)(110136005)(54906003)(316002)(33656002)(2906002)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E8C96CA391ABED45BB4D51AC6B9C4B13@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a678a67a-d294-4d71-2924-08d83d6d7943
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Aug 2020 20:39:26.6390 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: NG8k6QzDPNcpL+qpQFnuuMHoqG3Q9mHkqBASTTKbFbXNRGH2ItLpXc5zOib+QFKH
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR11MB4404
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1La6hJ2aofTBL9khTt9XkDt2H18>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:39:33 -0000

Hi Tarek, 

In that case, there is more wrong than just the RPC since you haven't augmented ietf-routing.yang properly to define an MPLS-specific RIB. Furthermore, I don't think you should. We need the optional MPLS augmentations for the IPv4 and IPv6 address families as these are what one would need in for a IPv4 or IPv6 RIB for a device that supports MPLS. 

Your augmentation to the active-route RPC needs to just be removed. 

Acee

On 8/10/20, 4:24 PM, "Tarek Saad" <tsaad@juniper.net> wrote:

    Hi Acee,

    The existing RPC is used to query (defined AFIs=IPv4/IPv6) RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "destination address".
    The MPLS module is trying to reuse this RPC so to query the MPLS RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "local label".
    The RPC defined in RFC 8349 readily accepts MPLS AFI in it (/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route) - unless we augment and suppress it with a "when check".
    IMO, it is reusable as-is but the text below is limiting the leaf name that identifies an entry in RIB to "destination-address" only - in MPLS RIB the entry leaf name that identifies an entry is "local-label".


            >            action active-route {
            >              description
            >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
            >                 destination address.
            >
            >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
            >                 parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";

    Regards,
    Tarek

    On 8/10/20, 3:27 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

        [External Email. Be cautious of content]


        All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
        I just looked at this in more detail and I don't think the ietf-mpls.yang model should be augmenting the /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The intent of the RPC is to return the address-family specific active-route corresponding to the destination-address. This model attempts to overload this RPC with a different action all together - returning a route that has the local-label as an optional attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the augmentation should be removed from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced with a different one is up to the co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
        Thanks,
        Acee

        On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:

            [Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit filter]

            Hi Tom,

            I would be interested to hear from the original authors.

            My impression is that this is a technically reasonable change, but I don't think that an erratum can create a new revision of a YANG module.

            If this erratum was processed as "Hold for document update" then would that be sufficient to do the right thing in the MPLS YANG module?

            Regards,
            Rob


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
            > Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
            > To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>rg>; lhotka@nic.cz; Acee
            > Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; yingzhen.qu@huawei.com; warren@kumari.net;
            > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; joelja@bogus.com;
            > kent+ietf@watsen.net; lberger@labn.net
            > Cc: tsaad@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
            > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
            >
            > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of RFC Errata System
            > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
            > Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
            >
            > <tp>
            > This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated on this list on June
            > 16th.
            >
            > There is a degree of urgency about it.  The I-D in question is mpls-base-
            > yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a Normative dependency of bfd-
            > yang which is a Normative dependency for a small mountain of I-D which
            > have been waiting a year or so (e.g.  ospf-yang).
            >
            > I suspect that the technically perfect solution would involve a YANG
            > union, choice or some such structure but as I said in my Last Call comment
            > I can live with a label that contains such as 'address' encompassing such
            > as 'label' in the context of forwarding.  I take labels to mean what
            > labels mean rather than what I might find in a work of reference.
            >
            > Tom Petch
            >
            > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349,
            > "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".
            >
            > --------------------------------------
            > You may review the report below and at:
            > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxw8DnSr2A$
            >
            > --------------------------------------
            > Type: Technical
            > Reported by: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
            >
            > Section: 7
            >
            > Original Text
            > -------------
            > The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route in a RIB.
            > RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
            >
            > draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS as per
            > section 3 in RFC8349.
            >
            > The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment input
            > parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.
            >
            > For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named 'local-label'
            > since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.
            >
            > We ask to make the following change:
            >
            > OLD:
            >            action active-route {
            >              description
            >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
            >                 destination address.
            >
            >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
            >                 parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";
            >
            >
            > Corrected Text
            > --------------
            > NEW:
            >            action active-route {
            >              description
            >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
            >                 destination address.
            >
            >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
            >                 parameters with a suitable leaf that identifies the
            > route.";
            >
            >
            > Notes
            > -----
            >
            >
            > Instructions:
            > -------------
            > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
            > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
            > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
            > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
            >
            > --------------------------------------
            > RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
            > --------------------------------------
            > Title               : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA
            > Version)
            > Publication Date    : March 2018
            > Author(s)           : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
            > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
            > Source              : Network Modeling
            > Area                : Operations and Management
            > Stream              : IETF
            > Verifying Party     : IESG
            >
            > _______________________________________________
            > netmod mailing list
            > netmod@ietf.org
            > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxxyc2_LZA$



    Juniper Business Use Only