<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.4.4) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-nygren-dhc-recommended-ipv6-address-01" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.29.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="DHCPv6 Recommended Address">DHCPv6 Recommended IPv6 Address Option</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-nygren-dhc-recommended-ipv6-address-01"/>
    <author fullname="Erik Nygren">
      <organization>Akamai Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>erik+ietf@nygren.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="July" day="04"/>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 34?>

<t>This document defines a new DHCPv6 option for communicating one or more recommended /128 IPv6 address to hosts within an assigned prefix. The Recommended Address option allows DHCPv6 servers to suggest specific IPv6 addresses that hosts should additionally use when configuring addresses within the assigned prefix.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Discussion Venues</name>
      <t>Discussion of this document takes place on the
    Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group mailing list (dhcwg@ietf.org),
    which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/"/>.</t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/enygren/draft-nygren-dhc-recommended-ipv6-address"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 38?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>IA_PD within DHCPv6 <xref target="RFC8415"/> allows clients such as hosts to request IPv6 prefixes, typically for delegation to downstream networks or interfaces. In scenarios such as Unique Prefix Per Host <xref target="RFC8273"/> the host is given the entire prefix and is free to use addresses from it as it sees fit.</t>
      <t>This document defines the Recommended Address option, which can be included within OPTION_IAPREFIX options to suggest one or more specific IPv6 addresses that clients should configure when using the associated prefix. These do not preclude the client from using other addresses within the prefix, such as for temporary addressing.</t>
      <t>This is intended for use in managed environments such as datacenters and cloud providers where the operator is configuring a host that they wish to manage or direct clients to. By providing a recommended address, the operator can encourage the host to have a particular /128 address that can be used for management purposes or as a service endpoint. At the same time, the remainder of the prefix is available for the host to use as it sees fit, such as for containers. For example, this allows the customer of a cloud provider to get a full /64 for use by a host while also allowing the customer to configure a specific /128 within that /64 that they can use for managing the host.</t>
      <t>The Recommended Address(es) continue to be here are for use by the host, differentiating this from PD_EXCLUDE specified in <xref target="RFC6603"/>.</t>
      <t>The Recommended Address option is only advisory and while clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use these /128 addresses they are not required to do so.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="requirements-language">
      <name>Requirements Language</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" 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.</t>
      <?line -18?>

</section>
    <section anchor="recommended-address-option">
      <name>Recommended Address Option</name>
      <t>The Recommended Address option provides a mechanism for DHCPv6 servers to suggest one or more specific IPv6 addresses within an assigned prefix that host clients should use on the their interface.</t>
      <section anchor="option-format">
        <name>Option Format</name>
        <t>The format of the Recommended Address option is:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      OPTION_RECADDR           |           option-len          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
|                     recommended-address                       |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        <t>Where:</t>
        <dl>
          <dt>option-code:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>OPTION_RECADDR (TBD by IANA)</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>option-len:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>17 (length of the option data in octets)</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>recommended-address:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>A 128-bit IPv6 address that the server recommends the client use</t>
          </dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
      <section anchor="option-usage">
        <name>Option Usage</name>
        <t>The Recommended Address option <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> only appear as a sub-option within an OPTION_IAPREFIX option. Multiple Recommended Address options <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be included within a single OPTION_IAPREFIX option to suggest that multiple addresses within the prefix should be assigned by the host to its interface.</t>
        <t>The recommended-address field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain an IPv6 address that falls within the prefix specified by the enclosing OPTION_IAPREFIX option. Servers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include Recommended Address options with addresses outside the associated prefix.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dhcpv6-server-behavior">
      <name>DHCPv6 Server Behavior</name>
      <t>DHCPv6 servers <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include OPTION_RECADDR within OPTION_IAPREFIX options in ADVERTISE, REPLY, and RENEW responses.</t>
      <t>Servers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> validate that any recommended addresses fall within the prefix bounds of the enclosing OPTION_IAPREFIX option before including them in responses.</t>
      <t>Servers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> avoid providing recommended addresses that would fall within those assigned to EUI-64 SLAAC addresses.</t>
      <t>Servers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> require clients to use recommended addresses, although operators of some tightly managed environments may set expectations that accepting connections on recommended address is required for proper operational function. Operators <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> assume that clients will use only recommended addresses as source addresses from within the prefix as clients remain free to use the entire delegated prefix for outbound connections.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dhcpv6-client-behavior">
      <name>DHCPv6 Client Behavior</name>
      <t>DHCPv6 clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> process Recommended Address options received within OPTION_IAPREFIX options. Clients that do not understand or support the Recommended Address option <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore it, as per standard DHCPv6 option processing rules.</t>
      <t>Clients configured to accept Recommended Addresses <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> configure the Recommended Addresses on a local host interface such that local services are reachable on that address.</t>
      <t>Prior to using the address, clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> validate that recommended address(es) fall within the bounds of the associated prefix and any outside <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored.</t>
      <t>Clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> also assign SLAAC addresses such as temporary addresses within the prefix. While clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use Recommended Addresses as a preferred source address they are not required to do so.</t>
      <section anchor="address-lifetime-and-removal">
        <name>Address Lifetime and Removal</name>
        <t>The lifetime of the Recommended Addresses are associated with that of the containing OPTION_IAPREFIX and its associated lease. Clients <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> set the valid lifetime and preferred lifetime (<xref target="RFC4862"/>) for Recommended Addresses to the remaining lifetime of the DHCPv6 lease associated with the OPTION_IAPREFIX.</t>
        <t>If a client had previously received a Recommended Address for a prefix but an subsequent advertisement for the same OPTION_IAPREFIX no longer contains it, the client <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> deprecate the address from its interface, such as by setting the preferred-lifetime of the address to 0 but leave the valid-lifetime as the remaining lifetime of the associated DHCPv6 lease.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="relationship-to-prefix-exclude-option">
      <name>Relationship to Prefix Exclude Option</name>
      <t>Unlike <xref target="RFC6603"/> which specifies a sub-prefix to exclude from the delegated prefix, Recommended Addresses propose one or more recommended addresses that the host client should use. Servers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> suggest a recommended address within a OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE prefix.</t>
      <t>To be removed prior to publication:
An alternate proposal was to use IA_NA within an excluded prefix, but that was thought to be too messy.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="use-cases-and-suitability">
      <name>Use-Cases and Suitability</name>
      <t>Cases where an operator may choose to deploy as an alternative to using IA_NA:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Client hosts only support IA_PD and not IA_NA but the operator wishes to continue to have at least one known /128 address on the host.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Client hosts that support IA_PD (such as IPv6 CE routers) and which also need an address on which they can be managed.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The alternatives for having both a IA_PD /64 and an IA_NA /128 for a client host is to use either a larger /63 prefix (with half of it only being used sparselyu for the /128) or to allocate the /64 and /128 from disjoint space. This latter scenario increases FIB count.  Both of these alternatives require clients to support both IA_PD and IA_NA.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The Recommended Address option is subject to the same authentication and security mechanisms as the base DHCPv6 protocol. Deployments requiring authentication <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use DHCPv6 authentication mechanisms <xref target="RFC3315"/> or secure the DHCPv6 communication channel.</t>
      <t>Recommended Addresses may have less entropy (or otherwise be more predictable) than those assigned via other mechanisms such as <xref target="RFC4941"/> and as such may be easier for attackers to find while scanning IPv6 address space.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="privacy-considerations">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>Recommended Addresses are primarily intended for use in managed environments such as data centers and cloud providers.</t>
      <t>This option extends upon DHCPv6 so has similar privacy properties to other modes of DHCPv6 such as IA_NA. See <xref target="RFC7824"/> for an extensive discussion of these properties. As Recommended Addresses are under server control and may have less entropy, they may be more predictable within the /64 than addresses under the clients control to select. Clients configured to use <xref target="RFC4941"/> Privacy Addresses or similar scheme may chose to prefer those as a default source address.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document requests IANA to assign a new DHCPv6 option code for the Recommended Address option from the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry.</t>
      <table>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Option Name</th>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="left">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Recommended Address</td>
            <td align="left">TBD</td>
            <td align="left">Recommended IPv6 address within an assigned prefix</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <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="RFC8415">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)</title>
            <author fullname="T. Mrugalski" initials="T." surname="Mrugalski"/>
            <author fullname="M. Siodelski" initials="M." surname="Siodelski"/>
            <author fullname="B. Volz" initials="B." surname="Volz"/>
            <author fullname="A. Yourtchenko" initials="A." surname="Yourtchenko"/>
            <author fullname="M. Richardson" initials="M." surname="Richardson"/>
            <author fullname="S. Jiang" initials="S." surname="Jiang"/>
            <author fullname="T. Lemon" initials="T." surname="Lemon"/>
            <author fullname="T. Winters" initials="T." surname="Winters"/>
            <date month="November" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6): an extensible mechanism for configuring nodes with network configuration parameters, IP addresses, and prefixes. Parameters can be provided statelessly, or in combination with stateful assignment of one or more IPv6 addresses and/or IPv6 prefixes. DHCPv6 can operate either in place of or in addition to stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC).</t>
              <t>This document updates the text from RFC 3315 (the original DHCPv6 specification) and incorporates prefix delegation (RFC 3633), stateless DHCPv6 (RFC 3736), an option to specify an upper bound for how long a client should wait before refreshing information (RFC 4242), a mechanism for throttling DHCPv6 clients when DHCPv6 service is not available (RFC 7083), and relay agent handling of unknown messages (RFC 7283). In addition, this document clarifies the interactions between models of operation (RFC 7550). As such, this document obsoletes RFC 3315, RFC 3633, RFC 3736, RFC 4242, RFC 7083, RFC 7283, and RFC 7550.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8415"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8415"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC3315">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)</title>
            <author fullname="R. Droms" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Droms"/>
            <author fullname="J. Bound" initials="J." surname="Bound"/>
            <author fullname="B. Volz" initials="B." surname="Volz"/>
            <author fullname="T. Lemon" initials="T." surname="Lemon"/>
            <author fullname="C. Perkins" initials="C." surname="Perkins"/>
            <author fullname="M. Carney" initials="M." surname="Carney"/>
            <date month="July" year="2003"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3315"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3315"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6603">
          <front>
            <title>Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation</title>
            <author fullname="J. Korhonen" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Korhonen"/>
            <author fullname="T. Savolainen" initials="T." surname="Savolainen"/>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <author fullname="O. Troan" initials="O." surname="Troan"/>
            <date month="May" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This specification defines an optional mechanism to allow exclusion of one specific prefix from a delegated prefix set when using DHCPv6-based prefix delegation. The new mechanism updates RFC 3633. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6603"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6603"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7824">
          <front>
            <title>Privacy Considerations for DHCPv6</title>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <author fullname="T. Mrugalski" initials="T." surname="Mrugalski"/>
            <author fullname="S. Jiang" initials="S." surname="Jiang"/>
            <date month="May" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>DHCPv6 is a protocol that is used to provide addressing and configuration information to IPv6 hosts. This document describes the privacy issues associated with the use of DHCPv6 by Internet users. It is intended to be an analysis of the present situation and does not propose any solutions.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7824"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7824"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8273">
          <front>
            <title>Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host</title>
            <author fullname="J. Brzozowski" initials="J." surname="Brzozowski"/>
            <author fullname="G. Van de Velde" initials="G." surname="Van de Velde"/>
            <date month="December" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document outlines an approach utilizing existing IPv6 protocols to allow hosts to be assigned a unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a unique IPv6 address from a shared IPv6 prefix). Benefits of using a unique IPv6 prefix over a unique service-provider IPv6 address include improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network segments.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8273"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8273"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4941">
          <front>
            <title>Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6</title>
            <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
            <author fullname="R. Draves" initials="R." surname="Draves"/>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <date month="September" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Nodes use IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration to generate addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers. Addresses are formed by combining network prefixes with an interface identifier. On an interface that contains an embedded IEEE Identifier, the interface identifier is typically derived from it. On other interface types, the interface identifier is generated through other means, for example, via random number generation. This document describes an extension to IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration for interfaces whose interface identifier is derived from an IEEE identifier. Use of the extension causes nodes to generate global scope addresses from interface identifiers that change over time, even in cases where the interface contains an embedded IEEE identifier. Changing the interface identifier (and the global scope addresses generated from it) over time makes it more difficult for eavesdroppers and other information collectors to identify when different addresses used in different transactions actually correspond to the same node. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4941"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4941"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4862">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration</title>
            <author fullname="S. Thomson" initials="S." surname="Thomson"/>
            <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
            <author fullname="T. Jinmei" initials="T." surname="Jinmei"/>
            <date month="September" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its interfaces in IP version 6. The autoconfiguration process includes generating a link-local address, generating global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration, and the Duplicate Address Detection procedure to verify the uniqueness of the addresses on a link. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4862"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4862"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 176?>

<section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thank you to Lorenzo Colitti, Kasper Dupont, and others for their feedback and suggestions on this document.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="open-questions">
      <name>Open Questions</name>
      <t>NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: to be removed before publication.</t>
      <t>Some open questions for discussions include:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Should we allow prefixes in-addition to /128 along with labels for those prefixes? For example to signal things like which ranges should be sub-delegated for use by Docker, etc?</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>What name should we use for this option?  OPTION_RECADDR? OPTION_RECOMMENDED_ADDRESS?</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>When should we use "client" vs "host"?</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Do we need more description of use-cases and purpose?</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="change-history">
      <name>Change History</name>
      <t>NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: to be removed before publication.</t>
      <section anchor="changes-in-01">
        <name>Changes in -01</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Clarify handling of removal, as well as provide recommendations for address lifetime.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Add use-cases and suitability. Increase clarity on the use-cases for hosts as well as the alternative.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="prior-to-00">
        <name>Prior to -00</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Removed priority and made it very clear that this is in-addition to temporary addresses and does not require clients to use these as a source address.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIAAAAAAAAA61a63bbNhL+z6fAOn+c1nJtx3USn556FUs58VnHdn1p2tPs
yYFISEJNESoBylHr9Fn2WfbJdi4ACUq008u6SUOTBDCY+WbmmwF7vV7itMvV
odgYvDm+WByIS5Wa2UwVmcrECd7oZ1mprBXnc6dNsZHI0ahUi+4B/t2NJDNp
IWcwbVbKsesVy0mpil42TXtl83pPzxcHPcljeju7SSqdmphyeSisy5JEz8tD
4crKur2dnZc7e8mtWt6ZMjsUJ4VTZaFcb4DTJ4l1ssg+yNwUsORSWbhRKjmD
F4fXrxM7k6X78EtlnLKHojDJXB+Kn5xJt4Q1Jbw5tnC1nOHFv5NEVm5qysNE
9BIBP+Mqz3kvw1LfijPaCj0x5UQW+leJejkU/Vs5k1pcq3RamNxMNIiBbym4
mx8KBYO/1MqN/8nK2IbRSVKYcgbjFwqWE5evj/d2d1/6yxe7z/fD5f7u14eg
j2K88vqzZ/iALg8Odp75y+cv9uqRe8/D3f2X+7vh8sXBHszX6/WEHIGqZAo6
vJ5qK8BuFRjHiUyNdaGskKJQd8Kb2hAEBEgh0IhVocFiupgI0DtoQ8xMqURk
YPHV7t4LRpG3snBGTI11VtxpN9WFkPDHWj0p4O05GEB/3BbXU9WFqrC8zHNz
Z4NMVpULVdLEtppMlHXCzlWqxzptrQx7cVPp/Op2aqo8w2ca54Qpl6KyStxN
VQF7K8Z6UpW4s2a0F9iBcKsSsypnOstylSRPEJ6lyaoUp06Sk/6Hi0EY7qX+
7Tdv1k+fwn7SXIPiQbQqncIKXlDYVql+qXBbtBteUQFg3XIO6kfB0R6ZytWE
kIhDMnNXsAuA+Rz4zK1F+2h0m7FMld0GGYVNVSFLbZo1bwoNa4kLWkRcqFK8
ASm8tAAlkBb3j6IJQMsEkMgaAck12J6lA6Nm+HhcKoXSoGIbPY5LMxPa4XLw
f6vwlnbbDwHQPQqGLbCYBtlTwNFIwQbTvMK3vLbPL65Pzs8+nPQvLoevT37w
g1pgiaH7KHBq+zB0Akg8ZiqLaPHgMKmGSNYCNKggMxB7HN4kIellnpR1wlMY
uF12w46n26qthXZ3ajY3pSyXYQjMEXSJf8DipDZ8F+0AU81kISdwSxULXZpi
1kJdJh3gA3FiyYxpbirciFnoDO/BZksW3cxVKR2iyrY9huFBOoP3lrADO0WN
87qo7AywkjYadWZbvFr6RXiKOIj4jW21V0WLqyI1VYmT1qjE+CIXYAUxh6Cv
0yqXJYehOgKRMRkvoBFWDctGwJtX5dyg5uG2xACIEUaniPFsbkCh26JPOxMW
soJweqZYtBIjPUhcCjOO7IX6kQvIAXKUK7ZZJCz5RssT2vYFzTqYFVS/LV7D
7+qjnM1zWhHn5dBBSII0aWa8uFwxGy40UeBylMzEVwf7NR5Gy2AwcCSQT+bW
8LQBz/XEMEkDetk4C2m3hikoF+dvzI+qxpVqNYeJcVWCaqeDbyr7lHavi4qi
CJiLsCdLFUsfZtoCVI3H8AKM4KREGiLPuhi8/zD84fj0ZjAMYsNCIC4FNsyc
nz49LEnIOzCbKXJ0tIUG3rAk/2CtBSS/7f9Icjly+Bh2HMmWJD1GAQzq4AUZ
R2vgIduYOC75LrvkqSwmFaCSBbtFTwLyY8XG25ur640t/lecndP15fC7m5PL
4QCvr970T0/ri8S/cfXm/OZ00Fw1I4/P374dng14MNwVrVvJBuwKnuBuNzig
9k83BBk7Dti4MzYTpRkAP4ZAaZNM2bTUI9b4q+OL//5ndx80/w9PdyCn8C9I
eOAXDKe8Gmmbf0XdJXI+VxKzGAIUcDXXDuC6ha4CQfmuIHyAHr/4CTXz70Px
zSid7+5/62/ghls3g85aN0ln63fWBrMSO251LFNrs3V/RdNtefs/tn4Peo9u
fnOUQ1wQvd0XR98mDJ516DJp/yy0faDAaDcD/gqs1s7IyR4mWX8kbz7I8Roq
tppW0XsMpzv4qyPOgg7yxG8IQyEQYd4Xk+IQdB91YCC9v//+eyJ2xPrPbse9
vY57z3D4Ljx6JvbF1+JAPBcvxMs/cy/5svc3/0vuWRbPbwBF/cHgMhLyPrrm
3fdyYCnN8/+fDH/55/6BGeIKMSTtPzfD35fhz8zw9zWJmEzeYfQCgHpzpSaD
3w5XTbx5/WqAae+kf9Z/Wr8MtsV3d5+LTbicuGnwBo98ZHUYN03qlLMwrkPH
OEFfQMrqjbRbKdp8MvdxoLGQjUksuG7soje2zl2P+CQFZk6rHN2ZclWjnn+h
iSGsiferbH5bvK1yp4EUPbIOp+aOCgHWAq4AYx+YPQ55pIZZWOwRih6C2Sgq
FSOqgnNqZ1uh7XqqOoEPTAUmIi15KoiqWLfOGFJipyQ13fECAGfODVUa3cXR
trjywT7kzKCzR9WLK0cqMZWz2tc46wURZiufWXgx8UoBa9emTJKVjINmC+sH
EwVfaBV5a5ZD/Yr+4Pvh5fXJ1XALUu3F6Y9MLC6HZ8N3oG47h9egGE6SsGef
whcy1+AzinUri2VXQYJ0HYnIutJHpkLf8D64qvF1jI3UGNMo79PT4xmK/4iI
cmF0FtVM3QKS/HcExrasxkbYBDwOb056QNuvTvv942Z8tGyNBs9co+qNknbn
+qDuHNaqJtO6cCO1WEOV02TqwPE769GZXAIGHNQ7AGAnfdlO1khTNSeCDw5R
qJQfmaJLAuTsNdNGPgP6mmONRMJQ4wdKoiJl4J/XItabBRVVM9VuANxpUCTz
lPwhYCAlhdI0XWt8rINFNq0friBbfZOoueJbPA2Jwg2BoxHaYmXE/nXMsXnN
v+KKBZSSorIe82/YptKLz3ZWtv2C3la+5VFhVUw9WqSMtprPTek+x9bIBoBP
8gxHLB9NR9PIMlvpSfo9kCdUOSE3SFIXrQR0hk/Xwqr2rabMfUBGRYCTIjcp
IIjbYSGYc/lO2+fHvn9gqUIqlQR+jZ0A46tlDxAQ+KLUpmTD182k0Puo7YVa
aYenDgRS8bwanNpRaS0qU2TEUBdiNy2FKZNskEUaRdBwo4AiyGrUqBsYa82p
rmS5Ld511tDdaid6gANViQZtO9kfKLGf1DA71WOFzRvOCGpmQKuch/Pw5OGS
wlszUiIlQLKHH+XTdWfcpwaps/H4XEmrGvfxSMQQiJORxRvBcHyjhPr2JvUz
sLv/6dNTCg/dooNCmoYVCri6Y+9bJFPHJtfZEqj2hPtOFG6mkuSDiFNZjpEc
PGSnw6Ogss6dFSZcZIAW+97YWMggATltuT0XGmjUfFtTbGHA6YqJqhtnlmJH
xFK9YjOFfVj2oQY/vjcdUbOmGzeihOSCZ9bq760qLzrq2KHtgBoXqjFjM0Da
z9ghUn1skm1f7+ecF6d6jov5rv3wo2dLvvS/KXJ9q+JWl++ZB2oYCHcozQ0k
XZ6C1IFyrKaerQeAhenVUGbsPg9aISY1Ifa2aXoAHSw0sPDO5nBD5wMk4p5f
TTuvqT9VorPTXny8nVejnI6yDJRRfWwv4fEigoM3BEH8TtZM56T//sNZPypM
vLoa5aDRmXmRhZH/ON8bc8aIGQi8pCR9Y1XvWFI0AY++qrSTI51rt4RYS7e5
3Q5r1H1vJEbp1KCWMa6peW6WFBUbsfVCNVmEpYW68ovABfhgichLSMX40sWA
hMDI6XfI24h67tjJ5/ARN2a5304w932h2wK7ca2uu+/pcM93RRRS1Yoom8Ht
qNQ5HooS0hLg4WnouuJTTEGFQhQU8UL8tG4+g9Y9xfR1VqQnDj7IjUBVI4M1
TJAAu9icEoM+aEMcrNJGfuSYHhlK8+GNyGWJMeirg2chrG1S6JzKfIy+rR3r
f6RwXTqFsHNZWpUvqzrC4XJPBSMUO/J1tAqSsTzoo5m2P+PRBM4C5aSg4x+I
Dg4Jkz/lw/KiVISq1yevwIIVHmWIV6buFtgV1XQw/WAlUlWEGtYQYfpKpVUJ
EBbHEJrw9IGD1B9pr0MU+hkPhnx+ohCPp/FIgNk9aTEbVqh7lTaE0hEmLB8q
wXedSU2+LQbkJTPPsXFTdMrUntknhqqZYOWFaDUKpnj4DsEUGS0KpOLMGR2P
w0gcV6gc1NMdNtGnyYty1IfC0+P5UmwivUdAgdspQrHhI9ZMQ0UEFPIpes5a
MbfQ0h8iRgIHb2KC8HJ/F8+dEdz+EUoAKwA8NAwkjDsn01vf9B3r+qjDgktR
rmr1IBh3aH4gsQuZrlv/YRIFYXgGAAV3+EunleKR48pwEuohpj46alpVUFTX
rW0MYDCjnmk8Kpx78blQdJrDndenwRY5+EoYGkJUH7EPwPdZFr+/AP2SFv2i
FmMyeGlagZlg8drhmnW2Rb+zBPNaohoqNOAw/JYmpy13godPTIJZV4ETk3B/
WFdEuZmXajiTrdfDCABUIHUNUW1XV2i0GGMBDVHdVNa6tukUOF3IaJzQmFbV
mIZYmqmxrHK3QvWZAmEXtCPOxMdS/usJy++6umbp+rAFe651+H0kVNW8aGOw
LORMp/yZxLFXBTv9hQ8/NCE5yyav9nQDhJpo60okAfehX3qG0e5efC/zCv8d
0KkZP7oHYehoE/Z/n9z34p/7lX/Xf8Med9dm7gX2ktvPWk798PHNvWgr+Z6/
gBlBxECz9FNkALnK+EidbCKLW7E0FVrgFOBY/GpAX0B1nN4S/5IWS/sB+qXz
Z3/ocTYYQ0NMgjyP83MGYC4YOj+tg0iKQudzVYjvKv9OgmegQ3F9jh8/ieHg
5Pr88tATskAGfQ8uooLY/MI+lcG5fglz8dc2tSfb0J0khnXFBPZO8RF6/bUO
vNQL3xrhukyNsFLhkiqXI5WH3Rqr6oFH8aE/uR/YAegoGmYCKR6ZPdOdUkLZ
Y6POM1L6hrdHJ+YDg3F9SyiXHoHM75B94QduYeydqs/rXRM8j8Rq//UovhFO
Md9/wEfDqyueGjTXnnWDQ8qGWFixgfRpA18cGHxOVI5iVRaBH0IlDOylNU32
H2gcoZ2Pp7ht8Qa8yZTLv2znJ2Emahrjp4jEUSErjTG4FllOn+aMeRaZUzfq
TuU5daU42zRliWyAElwpFHbIfcH/VnZkG+KPH2YxTYPgK4nleOrcDCHKSsw5
ksK1iS1vqu4o9XZ2cEuXceWDc3MCybDDJiCxQCDO8RDGV2fhG6IWdruaOjhN
ZuAi6rusNog9waRqczWU/w8LvifaiCoAAA==

-->

</rfc>
