Hi Acee, I was away and hence the delay but I've now responded to the IPR poll.
Regarding the update, I don't think I got to it. Please give me some time to dig into this and get back. Will work with co-authors to update/respond by next week. Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 3:31 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > I still need your response to the WG last call IPR poll. Also, have you > completed your update to the document to address these comments. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 4:59 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > Apologies for the delay in response due to my time off. I may be slow in > response for a couple of weeks more and will need more time to > update/rework the draft based on the comments received. > > > > Please check inline below for responses. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 7:46 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > Top posting in effort to also take a step back. > > I could understand the following sematic for the anycast flag: (beware) > this prefix may be an anycast prefix > > > > KT> I would say "this prefix IS an anycast prefix" - the operator has > provisioned it as anycast and so the routers/controllers will consider the > prefix as anycast. > > In which case, this is an additional indication, it’s not mandated for > any existing behavior, existing behaviors are unchanged and routers needs > to be equally capable of handling anycast prefix which don’t have this > AC-flag (just like today). > > Does this align with your objective? > > > > KT> These "existing behaviors" that you refer to are not specified in > any RFC and while I am aware of some implementations that do so, we should > be careful to not assume that these are standards. The objective of this > document is to simply standardize the Anycast flag that is introduced in > this document and that this is an indication provisioned by the operator. > Anything more/further - either related to use-cases or "existing behaviors" > is outside the scope of this OSPFv2 specific document. > > If so, I have the following comments: > > “A prefix that is advertised by a single node and without an AC-flag > MUST be considered node specific.” (*2) > > > > I disagree with this sentence which change the existing behavior and > does not align with the above semantic. > > For prefix without the AC-flag, one has no new information compared to > today and the behavior should be unchanged. > > The semantic is AC-flag set à anycast prefix (semantic is not: AC-flag > unset à prefix is unicasted) > > > > KT> Please see my previous comment about anycast behavior. Also, the > above text has been published as RFC9352/9513 for ISIS and OSPFv3 - so I am > afraid, but this behavior has been standardized already. OSPFv2 with be > consistent with the other IGPs in this behavior. > > > > “Both SR-MPLS prefix-SID and IPv4 prefix may be configured as anycast > and as such the same value can be advertised by multiple routers.” > > Sorry I’m not familiar with OSPF, but ideally the semantic would be the > same for IS-IS. For IS-IS, multiple L1L2 routers (or ASBR) would typically > advertise the same prefix when those prefixes are redistributed from > another area/domain. My reading is that the advertisement of the same > prefix by multiple ASBR/L1L2 routers does not qualify those prefix as > anycast. Is that a correct understanding? > > > > KT> Yes, you are correct. This is not anycast. We can clarify this. > > Regardless, I would welcome a clear definition of “anycast” in the > context of IGP. (for MPLS, I guess that we could say that a prefix is > advertised by multiple LERs but I’m not sure there is an equivalent term > for IGP) > > > > KT> It is the same IP address that is associated with and therefore > originated by those nodes. > > Some minor comments: > > “The AC-Flag MUST be preserved when re-advertising the prefix across > areas. » > > Ideally also across (IGP) redistribution. (I guess one could say that > this implementation specific but if we need the AC-flag we also need it > across domains) > > > > KT> Agree. > > A priori, removing the term “SR-MPLS” does not change the fact that > the AC-flag could be set on SR-MPLS SID. So the removal seem mostly > cosmetic^W editorial to me 😉 > > > > KT> The flag is set on the prefix and not the SID. It does get > associated with SID but ultimately it is the property of the prefix and not > the SID. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > Thanks > > --Bruno > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 3:30 AM > > To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > > Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; > Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > Hi Bruno, > > Please check inline below with KT3. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > Please see inline [Bruno2] > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:19 PM > > To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > > Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; > Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > Hi Bruno, > > Please check inline below with KT2 for responses. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 7:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > Please see inline [Bruno] > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:18 PM > > To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > > Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; > Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > Hi Bruno, > > Thanks for your feedback. Please check inline below for responses. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:12 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would also welcome a clear specification of the semantics. > > Such that the meaning and implications are clear on both the originator > and the receivers/consumers. > > e.g., from the originator standpoint: > > - The originator MAY advertise the Anycast Flag if CONDITIONS1 are met > (which allow for some useful features such as….) > > - The originator MUST advertise the Anycast Flag if CONDITIONS1 are met > (otherwise this breaks …) > > Please specify the CONDITIONS1. > > KT> Whether a prefix is anycast or not is configured by the operator. > This spec does not require implementations to detect that a prefix that it > is originating is also being originated from another node and hence may be > an anycast advertisement. We can clarify the same in the document. > > [Bruno] As an operator, why would I configure this? What for? What are > the possible drawbacks? (i.e., can this be configured on all prefixes > regardless of their anycast status) > > KT2> If anycast property is configured on all prefixes, then it is an > indication that none of those prefixes resolve to a unique node. That has > consequences in terms of usage. E.g., taking the TI-LFA repair path > use-case, we won't find the Node SID to be used to form the repair > segment-list. > > [Bruno2] Given OSPFv2, by SR you mean SR-MPLS I guess. For TI-LFA, if > you want a Node SID, why not simply picking a SID having the N flag. That’s > its semantic. Also with SR-MPLS we don’t do much aggregation so I’m not > sure to see use for prefix. (by prefix, I mean not a /32 address) > > KT3> Yes, that is why we had the N flag for that specific use case. I > assume there are no concerns with the use of the N flag and its semantics. > > I would propose those points be discussed in the operation > considerations section of this draft. > > In the absence of reason, this is not likely be configured IMHO. > > KT2> Sure. Thanks for that feedback. We can certainly do that in the > draft. I hope this isn't blocking the adoption in your view though, right? > > [Bruno2] I haven’t asked for blocking the adoption. I asked for > clearly specified semantic. > > e.g., from the receiver standpoint: > > What does this mean to have this Anycast Flag set? What properties are > being signaled? (a priori this may be already specified by CONDITIONS1 > above) > > KT> In addition to the previous response, for the receiver this means > that the same prefix MAY be advertised from more than one node (that may be > happening now or may happen in the future). This can be clarified as well. > > [Bruno] OK. If this is happening now, this is a priori already visible > in the LSDB. > > KT2> This is tricky. If the prefix is originated in a different > domain, it gets tricky to determine if the prefix is anycast or dual-homed > since the LSDB has a local area/domain view. > > [Bruno2] Agreed for prefix. For Node-SID you have the N-flag. > Regarding origination in another domain, would the ABR/L1L2 node be able to > detect this and set the anycast flag by itself? > > KT3> It cannot if the case is of anycast originating from different > domains/areas. > > Any reason to duplicate the info (I would guess that’s easier for > implementation but since this is not guaranteed to be implemented one would > need to also check in the LSDB. So doubling the work). > > KT2> This extension brings in simplicity for the receivers provided > that operators can configure this property. > > [Bruno2] aka moving the complexity to the service provider. I guess > you would not be surprised if I prefer the other way around (have computer > do the job instead of humans, have vendors do the job rather than operator > 😉) Configuring states and having to maintain/updates them forever is akin > to a technical debt to me. > > KT3> Here, I think, we may have a point of disagreement. While it is > outside the scope of this document, I hope we agree that there is a lot > more involved in the configuration of anycast prefix and the > service/use-case behind it. The Anycast property config provides a very > small additional "state" to be provisioned as part of a larger anycast > service/use-case provisioning. It allows the operator to robustly indicate > this property of the prefix (they know it is anycast) via the IGP without > requiring routers and applications to algorithmically figure this out (that > might not always be correct). I think of it as a useful optional lego block > in the set of IGP extensions. > > KT2> Like I mentioned above, this starts to get more complicated in > multi-domain scenarios. Perhaps we can think of this as the complexities > that we experience in determining this property via an LSDB/topology-db > that motivate us to bring forth this easier and more robust way. > > Any specific reason requiring the knowledge of the future? > > KT2> Perhaps at time T1, there are two nodes originating the prefix. > Then at time T2, one of them goes down (or becomes disconnected), do we > assume that the prefix is now not anycast? Then what happens if that other > node comes back up again. For certain use-cases where anycast prefix is not > desired, it may be helpful to completely avoid use of this prefix. The > operator knows their design and addressing and perhaps is able to provision > this prefix property correctly from the outset. > > [Bruno2] I guess there could be such use cases. But a priori in the > general case, when that other node come back 1) before IGP convergence > nothing change from a routing standpoint, 2) during routing convergence you > know about this other node and can do what you want. This includes updating > your FRR protection. If this is really a concerned (to assume anycast > status while it’s not certain) I find a sentence problematic in the draft > “A prefix that is advertised by a single node and without an AC-flag MUST > be considered node specific. ». TIn fact, the receiver does not know > whether this is a node specific prefix or an anycast prefix advertised by a > node not supporting this extension (or an operator not doing the right > configuration). > > KT3> We have the N and the AC flag. If they are configured properly, > then there is no ambiguity. But what if they are not? What if there is a > prefix w/o either of the flags set and say for the use-case like TI-LFA we > need to use that as a node identifier (because there is nothing else from > that node). That is the ambiguity that we are trying to cover. Btw, that > same text is there in RFC9352/9513 and therefore also in this document for > consistency across the IGPs. > > If this is specific to SR, please say so. > > KT> It is not specific to SR, it is a property of an IP prefix. > > But even in this sub-case, SR anycast has some conditions, both for > SR-MPLS and SRv6. > > KT> This document does not discuss either SR-MPLS or SRv6 anycast. It > covers an OSPFv2 extension to simply advertise the anycast property of any > IP prefix. The discussion of SR anycast belongs to some other (SPRING) > document ;-) > > [Bruno2] I’m sorry but “SR-MPLS” is the second word in the abstract. So > I believe this document covers SR-MPLS. IMO anything specific to SR-MPLS > caused by this document should be covered in this document. > > KT3> That is a mistake that Les has also pointed out. We will fix that. > > > > SR-MPLS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8402#section-3.3.1 > > “determining the second label is impossible unless A1 and A2 allocated > the same label value to the same prefix.” > > “Using an anycast segment without configuring identical SRGBs on all > > nodes belonging to the same anycast group may lead to misrouting (in > > an MPLS VPN deployment, some traffic may leak between VPNs).” > > So for SR-MPLS, where we did not have anycast flag at the time, the > burden of respecting the conditions seems to be on the receiver. In which > case, Anycast flag didn’t seem to be required. > > KT> True. But that was also beyond the anycast property of the prefix > - it also involves checking the Prefix SID associated with it (plus other > considerations) and that is something quite different. > > [Bruno2] That’s about anycast SR-MPLS SID which is the scope of your > document. > > KT3> Agree > > SRv6: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9352#name-advertising-anycast-propert > > “All the nodes advertising the same anycast locator MUST instantiate the > exact same set of SIDs under that anycast locator. Failure to do so may > result in traffic being dropped or misrouted.” > > > > So for SRv6 the burden is on the originator, and we felt the need to > define an anycast flag. > > KT> Note that RFC9352 does not restrict the advertisement of anycast > property of the prefix to SRv6. It applies to all IPv4/IPv6 prefixes - > irrespective of SRv6, SR-MPLSv4, SR-MPLSv6 or plain old IP. This is the > same for RFC9513 - since OSPFv3 supports IPv4/IPv6 prefixes as well as > SRv6, SR-MPLSv4, and SR-MPLSv6. > > [Bruno] Indeed. And note that RFC9352 did specify some specific > conditions (MUST) before a node may advertise this anycast flag. A priori > there is a reason for this. A priori the same reason would apply to > SR-MPLS, no? So why this sentence has not also been copied from RFC9352 and > adapted for SR-MPLS? (the sentence is “All the nodes advertising the same > anycast locator MUST instantiate the exact same set of SIDs under that > anycast locator. Failure to do so may result in traffic being dropped or > misrouted.”) > > KT2> You have a good point. All I can say is that RFC9352/9513 were > focussed on SRv6 extensions and therefore covered only those aspects. This > document is not an SR extension and I feel it is better that these aspects > related to SR anycast (SR-MPLS or SRv6) are covered in a separate document > in a more holistic manner. > > [Bruno2] On my side, speaking about holistic manner, I would a priori > have a preference for the document defining the anycast flag to cover the > anycast properties in an holistic manner. > > KT3> I understand your point of view. My view is that, the way > existing RFCs stand, we cover only the base protocol semantics of anycast > in this document and cover the overall SR anycast aspects in a separate > (SPRING?) document such that it also covers those aspects for ISIS and > OSPFv3. > > Interestingly, the conditions seem different… > > Authors seems to use RFC9352 and RFC9513 as a justification. I’m not > familiar with OSPFv2 but my understanding is that it does not advertise > SRv6 SID. So presumably there are some differences > > KT> I hope the previous responses clarify. > > “The prefix may be configured as anycast” > > Putting the burden on the network operator is not helping clarifying the > semantic. We need the receivers/consumers and the network operators to have > the same understanding of the semantic. (not to mention all implementations > on the receiver side) > > KT> I hope again the previous responses have clarified. > > [Bruno] Not yet. Cf my first point about an operation considerations > section. > > KT2> Ack for introducing operational considerations. > > So please specify the semantic. > > This may eventually lead to further discussion (e.g., on SR-MPLS) > > KT> That discussion is important and we've had offline conversations > about that. However, IMHO, that is beyond the scope of this document and > this thread. > > [Bruno] Too early to tell on my side. > > KT2> How about now? :-) > > [Bruno2] I’d say this discussion in this is in scope of this document. > Another thread works for me. I picked that thread as I don’t usually read > OSPF documents but have been convinced by Tony P.’s argument. > > In summary, I understand a bit more the point of view of this > document. But I’m still concerned that different implementations could have > a different reaction to this flag. For a link state protocol this seem > possibly problematic. > > KT3> OK. Let me take a step back. The Anycast property of the prefix > has been defined for 2 of the 3 IGPs - this document is covering that 3rd > IGP. As authors, we have already shared the various updates that we have > agreed to make to the document to clarify the semantics of the anycast > property of a prefix in OSPFv2. We will continue to incorporate WG inputs > should the document be adopted. However, as co-author, I do not agree that > it is in the scope of this document to delve into the use-case (they are > informative examples and so will be very brief about them in this document) > and the document should also not delve into the broader SR anycast aspects. > That later discussion belongs in SPRING. I will leave the adoption of the > document with that proposed scoping to the WG decision. > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > Thanks > > --Bruno > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > Thanks, > > --Bruno > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > Thank you > > --Bruno > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:44 PM > > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) < > [email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > I think the draft is somewhat superfluous and worse, can generate > completely unclear semantics > > 1) First, seeing the justification I doubt we need that flag. if the > only need is for the SR controller to know it's anycast since it computes > some paths this can be done by configuring the prefix on the controller > itself. It's all centralized anyway. > > 2) OSPF today due to SPF limitations has a "baked-in weird anycast" > since if prefixes are ECMP (from pont of view of a source) they become > anycast, otherwise they ain't. I think the anycast SID suffers from same > limi8ation and is hence not a "real anycast" (if _real anycast_ means > something that independent of metrics balances on the prefix). Hence this > draft saying "it's anycast" has completely unclear semantics to me, worse, > possibly broken ones. What do I do as a router when this flag is not around > but two instances of the prefix are ECMP to me? What do I do on another > router when those two instances have anycast but they are not ECMP? What > will happen if the ECMP is lost due to ABR re-advertising where the "flag > must be preserved" . > > 3) There is one good use case from my experience and this is to > differentiate between a prefix moving between routers (mobility) and real > anycast. That needs however far more stuff in terms of timestamping the > prefix. pascal wrote and added that very carefully to rift if there is > desire here to add proper anycast semantics support to the protocol. > > So I'm not in favor in adopting this unless the semantic is clearly > written out for this flag and the according procedures specified (mobility? > behavior on lack/presence of flag of normal routers etc). Saying " > > It > > is useful for other routers to know that the advertisement is for an > > anycast identifier. > > " is not a use case or justification for adding this. > > if this is "anycast in case of SR computed paths that are not ECMP" > then the draft needs to say so and call it "SR anycast" or some such stuff. > If it is something else I'd like to understand the semantics of this flag > before this is adopted. > > -- tony > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 5:10 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 12:07, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Sure, Acee. We can take that on :-) > > I hope it is ok that this is done post adoption? > > Yup. I realize this is a simple draft to fill an IGP gap but I did ask > the question below. Hopefully, we can get to WG last call quickly. > > Thanks, > > Acee > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:35 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Acee/Jie, > > > > > > The most common users of the anycast property of a prefix are external > controllers/PCE that perform path computation exercises. As an example, > knowing the anycast prefix of a pair of redundant ABRs allows that anycast > prefix SID to be in a SRTE path across the ABRs with protection against one > of those ABR nodes going down or getting disconnected. There are other use > cases. An example of local use on the router by IGPs is to avoid picking > anycast SIDs in the repair segment-list prepared for TI-LFA protection - > this is because it could cause an undesirable path that may not be aligned > during the FRR window and/or post-convergence. > > > > > > That said, since ISIS (RFC9352) and OSPFv3 (RFC9513) didn't have the > burden of this justification of an use-case, I hope the same burden would > not fall on this OSPFv2 document simply because it only has this one > specific extension. > > > > But they also weren't added in a draft specifically devoted to the > Anycast flag. It would be good to list the examples above as potential use > cases. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:16 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Jie, > > > > > > I asked this when the flag was added to IS-IS and then to OSPFv3. I > agree it would be good to know why knowing a prefix is an Anycast address > is "useful" when the whole point is that you use the closest one (or some > other criteria). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Acee > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi authors, > > > > > > > > I just read this document. Maybe I didn't follow the previous > discussion, but it seems in the current version it does not describe how > this newly defined flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jie > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM > > > > To: lsr <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > > > > > > > > > > > This starts the Working Group adoption call for > draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag. This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft > adding an Anycast flag for IPv4 prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3. > > > > > > > > Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th, > 2024. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Acee > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Lsr mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme > ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
