|
Yong
and All,
See my
comments below under [VY3]
Vladimir
Vladimir and all,
I think that we can almost compromise each
other.
See my comments inline with [YONG3]
Thanks,
Yong Chang
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:16
PM
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
[Harmonization] MBS Harmonization
Yong,
I
see that zone of our disagreement is comparatively small
See my answers below marked as [VY2]
Vladimir
Vladimir,
Thanks for your quick response.
My comments are inlined below under
[YONG2].
I think that we can harmonize
together.
If there is another company to have another
comments on it, please let us know.
Thanks,
Yong
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 5:55
AM
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
[Harmonization] MBS Harmonization
Yong,
Thanks for your letter.
See my comments
below,marked as [VY].
Vladimir >
-----Original Message----- > From: Yong Chang [ mailto:yongchang@samsung.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:17 AM
> To:
Vladimir Yanover; Roger B. Marks
> Cc: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
Harmonization
>
>
> Dear Vladimir and
all,
>
> First of all, I want to say sorry for not asking
you before.
> But, the authors shown in the initial drafts are
folks who are having
> comments on MBS issue now.
> I had
tried to tell who is involved in making a harmonization
> on MBS
now.
> When we upload the next version, we will strike out your
name from the
> Harmonization Draft.
>
> Second of
all, as I told in Harmonization Conference calls,
> we have still
open issues in MBS now.
>
> Last of all, my technical
comments are inline below with [YONG]
>
> I hope to
understand what we are going to do.
>
>
Thanks,
>
> Yong Chang
>
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Vladimir Yanover"
<vladimir.yanover@alvarion.com>
> To: "Roger B. Marks"
<r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> Cc:
<stds-802-16@ieee.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 8:31
PM
> Subject: RE: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
Harmonization
>
>
> > Thanks, I am completely
satisfied
> > Vladimir
> >
> > >
-----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roger B. Marks
[mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:00 PM
>
> > To: Vladimir Yanover
> > > Cc:
stds-802-16@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
[Harmonization] MBS
> Harmonization
> > >
> >
>
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > >
I've edited the file, striking out your name.
> > >
>
> > I've also noted in the index that "Vladimir Yanover
has
> been deleted
> > > from the author list at his
request."
> > >
> > > Let me know if you have
any problem with this solution.
> > >
> > >
Roger
> > >
> > >
> > > At 12:54
+0300 2004-08-13, Vladimir Yanover wrote:
> > >
>All,
> > > >
> > > >I was surprised to
find my name in contribution
> > > H80216e-04_005. It
makes
> > > >wrong impression that I basically agree with
its content.
> > > >I never saw this document before
publication and was never
> > > asked to sign on
>
> > >it. So I cannot be responsible
> > > >for
content of the document as well as for statements
> > >
expressed in the
> > > >document from the name of
Alvarion.
> > > >
> > > >I find this way
of actions inappropriate and request to
> > > remove the
document
> > > >from 802.16 WEB site or at least to
publish another version
> > > without my name.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >My view on
multicast services is the following.
> > > >1.
Requirements
> > > >- ability to receive MC content while
in normal
> operations [not Idle]
> > > >- ability
to employ power saving, at least while in
> normal
operations
> > > >- MC content will be available only to
authorized MSSs
> > > >
> > > >Ability to
receive MC content while in Idle Mode should be a
> > >
separated
> > > >capability.
>
##################
> [YONG]
> We don't need to put any
limitation that MBS is applicable to
> only Normal
>
operations.
[VY] We are talking on requirements here. If
we drop requirement for ability to receive MC data in Idle mode, then no
additions to MAC are needed,
therefore no new features in the system
to develop. For me it is a strong motivation to have a separated
capability. I believe, many members have same position.
Now, if
we extend requirements to support Idle mode, we need new features like
new DL-MAP IE (you call it MBS_MAP IE ) to help Sleep control in
Idle mode.
As you might see from my letter, I 1) accepted idea to
have such IE 2) suggested to make such IE general [not related to
multicast business].
If we do it, then we also do not need
abovementioned restriction [separated capability for Idle
mode].
Let me know if it is OK for you.
[YONG2]
That's fine. I do not intend to apply MBS_MAP IE only to MBS business.
This MBS_MAP IE generally can be used for telling when the next frame
associated with the CID is
transmitted from the BS.
[VY2] So we agree to extend usage
of renamed MBS_MAP IE. This also eliminates need in special capability
for Idle mode
Most companies do not
want to have different ways for MBS pending on the mode that the
MSS is currently in.
[YONG3] No issue any more
here.
> As I told several times, our MBS proposal is applicable to
all MSS
> types(e.g., awake, sleep, and idle) with the same
information element.
[VY] I don't understand what is "MSS
of awake type" or 'MSS of sleep type". Any clarification would help a
lot.
[YONG2] They
are MSS in awake mode, MSS in sleep mode.
What I tried to
say is that one unified way is needed for MBS like service regardless of
the mode that the MSS is currently in.
[VY2] Yes. See
previous comment.
[YONG3] No issue any more
here. >
For obtaining power saving, we want to use the same mechanism > to
be applied > to all MSS types. > Explictly, the MSS
can receive the registered MBS content > only when it is >
successfully authenticated and authorized for MBS application >
content that > it has requested. > There is no technical
reason to consider the ability to > receive MBS content >
while in idle mode as a separated capability. > Technically, we
can have much gain when the MSS in idle mode > can receive
the > MBS content seamlessly over multiple BSs because the MSS
can > receive the > MBS application content on moving
multiple BSs without any > network re-entry >
procedure. > Additionally, the MBS does not limit the current
normal > operation scenario. > That is, the concurrent
service(e.g., both unicast service on normal > operation and MBS
simultaneously) is always possible. >
################## > > > > > > > >
>2. To satisfy above requirements actually no additional MAC >
> > features needed. > > > >What we need is few
informative sentences: > > > >- Some of DL Service Flows
are for distributon of > multicast content > > > >-
While the MSS is in normal operations mode [not Idle], all > >
> procedures are > > > >performed as in 6.3.13
[establishment of connections], usual > > >
>authorization/security stuff > > > >is applicable.
The MSS may go to sleep and be wakened by > > > TRF-IND
with > > > >reference to the CID associated with
multicast service > > ################## >
[YONG] > I told your positions in previous Harmonization
conference > calls on issues > and remedies. > If I
understand your proposal correctly, your proposal for DL SFID >
pre-reserved for MBS usage can be applicable to idle
mode. [VY] I said that there is a problem of CIDs used
for transmission of multicast content. If a an MSS in Idle mode
is
synchronized with a BS, and the BS is using certain CID for multicast
transmission, how the CID becomes known
to those MSSs? Simple
solution: assume that there is a mapping SFID onto CID, same for the
whole network and it is known to both BS and MSS.
We don't need to
specify it in the standard, just to say that such mapping
exists.
We may to do one step further and
to specify that certain set of CIDs is allocated for that [e.g. those
allocated in UL for multcast polling].
[YONG2] At
least O.K. to me. >
However, it seems to me that what you said on authorization
> and
security for
> MBS is very very complex.
> If I follow your
scenario, the MSS shall perform the current
> network
entry
> procedure always whenever the MSS moves multiple
BSs.
[VY] I don't understand sentence "the MSS moves
multiple BSs", so cannot comment on this part.
I don't understand also what is "my scenario".
[YONG2]
Your sentence
"While the MSS is in normal operations mode [not Idle],
all procedures are performed as in 6.3.13 [establishment of
connections], usual authorization/security stuff is
applicable." implied to me that the USUAL
authorization/security, not MBS authorization/security is
applied.
Under your sentence,
the MSS shall be re-authorized and shall change the multicast security
key acrossing multiple BSs.
Based on
what you said in your comment below, you are thinking the same
authorization/security stuff with what we are having.
[VY2] Once the MSS is in normal operations [not Idle mode] , it
must perform all usual procedures including authentication and
establishment of
connections.
Now, the question is
whether multicast connections must be handled this way also. I
think, it may help. It will allow the BS to know that the MSS
is a consumer of multicast data and to establish bidirectional
communication with the MSS [for example, to provide at upper layer a
security update]
[YONG3] Initially, the MSS shall perform the usual network entry
procedure to obtain the multicast IP # and port number from the network
side. At that time, BS may know whether or not this MSS is trying to get
the MBS content. However, the BS does not need to establish the traffic
CID specific to this MSS for transmission of MBS content. The MSS tends
to get into the idle mode after receiving the necessary connection and
security information from the BS. If the MSS moves to another BS on
receiving the MBS content, the another target BS does not need to know
whether or not the MSS receiving the MBS content currently comes in and
what mode the MSS in currently in. The encryption key update is
controlled by the network side.
MSS does not trigger updating the MBS
encryption key.
[VY3] This is
correct. This is why I didn't say "the MSS must do DSA for multicast
SFs." I would say "the MSS may do DSA for multicast
SFs."
> You can not obtain Macro Diversity
since the user-specific security
> mechanism is applied to the
MBS.
[VY] My interpretation of above
is: you're saying that if upper level security mechanism is
applied,
diversity combining cannot be used. If this
interpretation is correct, I'd like to say that I don't
understand
why diversity combining cannot be used. If
several BSs transmit same content and it is encrypted at upper layer
with same key,
then in the air we shall see same
transmissions [MAC PDUs]. Same is correct for encryption
at MAC level:
if two BSs use same key [for
encryption of MAC PDU payload], combining is possible, otherwise it
is not.
[YONG2]
That's what I am trying
to say. I think that your previous sentence might mislead me
misunderstanding what you tried to say.
[VY2} Seems no
disagreement
here?
[YONG3] As I answered in
response to Jeff's comments, the MBS encryption can be performed on
either application layer or MAC layer, not BOTH.
> Accordingly, your proposal using current normal
operation
> does not have any
> performance improvement on
receiving MBS content.
> Moreover, your proposal is very heavy and
overhead to the BS
> and MSS because
> BSs shall know how
many MSSs are currently receiving the specific MBS
>
content,
> how many MSSs are sleep mode currently, and MSS shall
join
> the specific MBS
> content at the network whenever
MSS wants to change his MBS
> application
>
channel.
>
> Conclusively, your scenario following the
current normal
> operation is based
> on current multicast
service using IGMP on IP and above layer.
[VY] Yong, I didn't say a word on
IGMP or IP multicast service.
I would appreciate if you read my
letter more carefully. Thanks
[YONG2] O.K. You
correct my misunderstanding.
> The
current standard can provide what you have in your mind
> at the
sacrifice
> of performance improvement(e.g., Macro Diversity),
simplicity(e.g., BS
> management, MSS join and leave
procedure)
> and generality(e.g., regardless of the MSS's
mode).
> Repeatedly speaking, our simplified MBS proposal does
not
> effect on the
> current normal operation.
>
##################
>
>
> > > >
> >
> >3. Ability of MSS to receive MC content while in Idle
mode
> > > should be a
> > > >separated
capability. In this case authorization should be
> > >
supported by
> > > >upper layers.
> > >
>For example, the content may be encrypted and only
> > >
authorized MSSs will have
> > > >the key. Mapping of MC
SFIDs onto CIDs shall be known to all BSs
> > > >in the
network and to all relevant MSSs [mechanism is out of
> > >
scope of 16e]
>
> ##################
> [YONG]
>
As I said earlier, what you said in the above is fine to me.
>
Now, we are waiting for another company's comment for
harmonization.
> ##################
>
> > >
>
> > > >The only issue remains power save while in
Idle mode. To
> > > provide that,
> > >
>MBS_MAP Information Element may be useful, but I would
> make
it more
> > > >general: allow any CID to be encoded
including Basic CID of
> > > some MSS. Then
> >
> >such IE would signal to relevant MSS[s] that there will
be
> > > no DL traffic at
> > > >the CID
within certain time interval [so the MSS may save
> > >
power, go for
> > > >scanning etc.] Accordingly the name
should be changed
> [e.g. to "Idle
> > > >interval
IE"].
> ##################
> [YONG]
> I do not
understand what you are proposing.
> MBS-MAP extended IE is for
the prediction when the next MBS frame is
> transmitted.
>
Why this feature should be bound with MSS's Basic CID?
> MBS_MAP
IE is not relevant to the MSS but relevant to the
> Multicast CID
of
> MBS content.
> This MBS_MAP has already covered normal
operation. Don't need
> to limit to
> the Idle Mode
only.
[VY] Let me spell out my
suggestion.
1. Define IE of same structure as
you suggest
2. Make it not specific to MBS. It
means allow to use it for all CIDs, not only for those carrying
multicast content.
3. Change it's
name
Hope, this helps better
understanding
[YONG2] My responses
are
1. O.K.
2.
O.K.
3. How
about Pre-scheduling IE instead of MBS_MAP IE ?
[VY2} Is it really a prescheduling?
Seems reasonable to define the meaning of the IE as "BS says that for N
frames there
will be no transmission at the
CID". But I don't recommend to make it "BS says that after N frames there will
certainly be
a transmission at the CID". We don't need to
restrict ourselves. MSS receives the IE, goes to sleep,
awakes and starts to listen.
It may listen
for several frames before receives a multicast transmission.
Or BS may decide to send one more IE
of this type etc.
[YONG3] If the MSS miss the
frame detined to be transmitted after N frames, the MSS listen to next
several frames continuously till it receives this IE successfully. The
operation is not diffent each other.
Could you explain what
restriction we have now?
[VY3] My understanding of IE function is
the following
1. The IE may be used for any CID of any MSS
[not necessary in Idle mode]
2. Transmission off the IE means that
during N frames there will be no transmissions at the connection.
3. If the CID is Basic CID of some MSS, it
means that there will be no transmissions to the
MSS
[certainly MSS in Idle mode has no
Basic CID, so #3 is not appliable to MSS in Idle
mode]
4. If such IE contains CID related to the
MSS, the MSS is supposed after N frames to be ready to receive something
from the BS.
There is no obligation from BS side to really
transmit data.
Now, assuming we agree with above description,
I would rather call it "Idle interval IE" or something like that.
Another recommendation is to allow CID in the
IE to be a Basic CID of the MSS. Then the IE will
provide yet another way to
allocate to the MSS
a vacation time
[similarly to Sleep Mode].
[YONG3] I
agreed with Phil's comment on this. In idle mode, Basci CID is not
assigned to the MSS.
[VY3] See above
clarification
> ##################
>
>
> > >
> > > >Other concepts are more less
covered by existing
> > > constructions. For example
>
> > >virtual connection / "MBS Zone" functions are covered
by
> Service Flow
> > > >concept
>
##################
> [YONG]
> For the virtual connection
concept, I can be willing to harmonize your
> concept because most
of companies
> agreed with the concept that MBS connection
infomation shall
> be the same
> over multiple
BSs.
>
> MBS Zone is applicable to tell the Macro Diversity
Zone and regional
> specific deployment
[VY] So you do agree to
replace "virtual connection" with Service
Flow?
I would appreciate
that
[YONG2]
We need
explicit text to show how Service Flow works
like virtual connection that I proposed.
[VY2} OK, I am sending to Yong a
small doc with such wording [cannot send it to the
reflector].
Feel free to use
it.
By the way, Service
Flow does not replace the MBS Zone because
MBS Zone is designed
for the MSS to know whether or not
the MBS connection
information previously stored is maintained when it moves into another
BS.
> ##################
>
>
> > >
> > > >Vladimir
> > >
>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
>
> > >> From: Beomjoon (BJ) Kim [mailto:beom@LGE.COM]
>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:31
AM
> > > >> To:
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> > > >>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
> > >
Harmonization
> > > >>
> > >
>>
> > > >> Dear Yigal
> > >
>>
> > > >> You mean that every BS will be
able to support Macro
> > > >> Diversity in PHY
level.
> > > >> Am I right? If so, we agree with
you in that the negotiation
> > > >> procedures
are not necessary.
> > > >>
> > >
>> Also, if you have another comment or answer, please give
me a
> > > >> feedback.
> > >
>>
> > > >> Thank you
> > >
>>
> > > >> Regards,
> > >
>>
> > > >> BJ
> > >
>>
> > > >> ----- Original Message
-----
> > > >> From:
<owner-stds-802-16-mobile@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > >
>> To: <STDS-802-16-MOBILE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:40
AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
[Harmonization] MBS
> > > Harmonization
> > >
>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> Dear BJ,
> > > >> >
> > >
>> > I am not aware that there currently exists a
possibility
> > > >> that a BS will not
>
> > >> > support the MBS zone in the PHY level, and
I'm not sure we
> > > >> want to promote
>
> > >> > BS that do not support this very important
capability, so I
> > > >> don't think a
>
> > >> > negotiation is required.
> > >
>> >
> > > >> > BR,
>
> > >> > Yigal
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > -----Original
Message-----
> > > >> > From:
owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org
> > >
>> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org]On
> > > >> Behalf Of
Beomjoon
> > > >> > (BJ) Kim
> >
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:03
PM
> > > > > > To:
STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org
> > > >>
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [Harmonization] MBS
> >
> Harmonization
> > > >> >
> >
> >> >
> > > >> > Dear Yong
Chang and all involved in MBS
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > I'm BJ from LG
Electronics.
> > > >> > We want to clarify a
few things and our position regarding
> > > >>
the issue in the
> > > >> > uploaded
contribution by Yong Chang.
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > 1) Basically, we agree to
that Pre-Advermisement may not be
> > > >>
necessary under
> > > >> > the assumption of
Macro Diversity.
> > > >> > Therefore,
NBR-ADV message may not include MBS Zone ID of
> > >
>> neighbor BSs (if
> > > >> >
there is no need for an MSS to perform HO under the
>
assumption).
> > > >> >
> > >
>> > 2) However, when an MSS attempts to enter network at
a BS,
> > > >> it is necessary
> > >
>> > for the MSS to negotiate MBS capability with the BS
whether
> > > >> or not the BS
> > >
>> > can support MBS based on Macro Diversity. It is
because all
> > > >> BSs may not
> >
> >> > support MBS with Macro Diversity. So, we have
proposed that
> > > >> Mode Support
> >
> >> > Indication (MBS support) should be included
in
> > > REG-REQ/RSP in our
> > > >>
> contribution (H80216e-04/01).
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > 3) Also, we have proposed a
Backbone message to manage the
> > > >> BSs
included in
> > > >> > MBS zone.
> >
> >> > We want to hear your opinion about the backbone
message.
> > > >> > (Alvarion people seem to
think it may be out of scope.)
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > Additionally, we have a
question.
> > > >> >
> > >
>> > Under the environment where Macro Diversity is
supported,
> > > >> we understand that
>
> > >> > there is no need for an MSS receiving only
MBS traffic to
> > > >> perform Handover
>
> > >> > procedures.
> > >
>> > However, there may be a case where an MSS starting
to
> > > >> receive MBS traffic
> >
> >> > from BS 1 moves to BS 2.
> > >
>> > In this case, BS 2 does not know the MSS is in its
coverage
> > > >> because the MSS
> >
> >> > did not perform HO procedures.
> >
> >> >
> > > >> > In this
situation,
> > > >> > Q1: If there is DL
traffic addressed to the MSS, how can
> > > >>
either BS1 or BS2
> > > >> > trasmits the
traffic to the MSS without any session
> > > >>
information of the MSS?
> > > >> > If the MSS
is in Idle Mode when the DL traffic arrives (at
> > >
>> this time the DL
> > > >> >
traffic will arrive at BS1), the DL traffic may be
> >
> >> delivered to the MSS
> > >
>> > using the existing procedures of Idle Mode.
>
> > >> > However, if the MSS is in Normal Mode or
Sleep Mode, it is
> > > >> impossible to
>
> > >> > deliver the traffic to the MSS.
>
> > >> >
> > > >> > Q2:
If the MSS has UL traffic to transmit, should the MSS
> > >
>> perform Initial
> > > >> >
Network Entry at BS2?
> > > >> >
> >
> >> > Thank you
> > > >>
>
> > > >> > Regards,
> > >
>> >
> > > >> > BJ
>
> > >> >
> > > >> >
----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From:
<owner-stds-802-16-mobile@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >
>> > To:
<STDS-802-16-MOBILE@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:44 PM
>
> > >> > Subject: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE]
[Harmonization] MBS
> Harmonization
> > >
>> >
> > > >> >
> >
> >> > > All,
> > > >> >
>
> > > >> > > I have uploaded the
initial draft for MBS Harmonization
> > > >> on
the upload
> > > >> > > server.
>
> > >> > > I showed in this draft how many
comments on MBS
> were given.
> > > >>
> >
> > > >> > > For conference call
of MBS only, what I heard from
> > > the chair of
>
> > >> > > Harmonization is that
> >
> >> > >
> > > >> > >
Time: August 5(Thursday), 3:30 PM (PST)
> > > >>
> > Bridge Information: Chair will give information ASAP.
>
> > >> > >
> > > >> >
> If anyone have a contribution with MBS, then please
> >
> >> upload it on the
> > > >>
> server
> > > >> > > before the
meeting.
> > > >> > >
> > >
>> > > Thank,
> > > >> >
>
> > > >> > > Yong Chang/Ph.D
>
> > >> > > Samsung Electronics, LTD
> >
> >> > >
> > > >> >
>
> > > >> > >
> > >
>> >
> > > >> >
> >
> >> >
> > > >>
> > >
>>
> > > >> This mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
> > > >>
> > >
>>
**************************************************************
>
> > >**********************
> > > >>
This footnote confirms that this email message has
> been scanned
by
> > > >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence
of malicious code,
> > > >> vandals &
computer viruses.
> > > >>
**************************************************************
>
> > >**********************
> > > >>
>
> > >This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
> > >
>
> > >
>*************************************************************
>
> ***********************
> > > >This footnote
confirms that this email message has been
> scanned by
>
> > >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
vandals &
> > > >computer viruses.
> > >
>*************************************************************
>
> ***********************
> > >
> > >
>
> >
> > > This mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
> > >
> > >
**************************************************************
>
> **********************
> > > This footnote confirms
that this email message has been scanned by
> > > PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> > >
vandals & computer viruses.
> > >
**************************************************************
>
> **********************
> > >
> > This mail was
sent via mail.alvarion.com
> >
> >
>
**************************************************************
>
**************
> ********
> > This footnote confirms that
this email message has been scanned by
> > PineApp Mail-SeCure
for the presence of malicious code,
> vandals &
computer
> viruses.
> >
>
**************************************************************
>
**************
> ********
>
>
>
>
>
> This mail passed
through mail.alvarion.com
>
>
**************************************************************
>
**********************
> This footnote confirms that this email
message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence
of malicious code,
> vandals & computer viruses.
>
**************************************************************
>
**********************
>
This mail was sent
via
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************
This
mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************
This
mail was sent via
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************
This
mail passed through
mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This
footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
************************************************************************************
This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
|