| Rfc | 7843 |
|---|
| Title | Port Control Protocol (PCP) Third-Party ID Option |
|---|
| Author | A. Ripke, R.
Winter, T. Dietz, J. Quittek, R. da Silva |
|---|
| Date | May 2016 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT,
HTML |
|---|
| Updates | RFC6887 |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Ripke
Request for Comments: 7843 R. Winter
Updates: 6887 T. Dietz
Category: Standards Track J. Quittek
ISSN: 2070-1721 NEC
R. da Silva
Telefonica I+D
May 2016
Port Control Protocol (PCP) Third-Party ID Option
Abstract
This document describes a new Port Control Protocol (PCP) option
called the THIRD_PARTY_ID option. It is designed to be used together
with the THIRD_PARTY option specified in RFC 6887.
The THIRD_PARTY_ID option serves to identify a third party in
situations where a third party's IP address contained in the
THIRD_PARTY option does not provide sufficient information to create
requested mappings in a PCP-controlled device.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7843.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Target Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Carrier-Hosted UPnP IGD-PCP IWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Carrier Web Portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Generating a Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Processing a Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Processing a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The IETF has specified the Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] to
control how packets are translated and/or forwarded by a PCP-
controlled device such as a Network Address Translator (NAT) or a
firewall.
This document focuses on scenarios where the PCP client sends
requests that concern internal addresses other than the address of
the PCP client itself.
There is already an option defined for this purpose in [RFC6887]
called the THIRD_PARTY option. The THIRD_PARTY option carries the IP
address of a host for which a PCP client requests an action at the
PCP server. For example, the THIRD_PARTY option can be used if port
mapping requests for a Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) are not sent from PCP
clients at subscriber terminals but instead from a PCP Interworking
Function (IWF), which requests port mappings.
In some cases, the THIRD_PARTY option alone is not sufficient and
further means are needed for identifying the third party. Such cases
are addressed by the THIRD_PARTY_ID option, which is specified in
this document.
The primary issue addressed by the THIRD_PARTY_ID option is that
there are CGN deployments that do not distinguish internal hosts by
their IP address alone, but use further identifiers (IDs) for unique
subscriber identification. For example, this is the case if a CGN
supports overlapping private or shared IP address spaces [RFC1918]
[RFC6598] for internal hosts of different subscribers. In such
cases, different internal hosts are identified and mapped at the CGN
by their IP address and/or another ID, for example, the ID of a
tunnel between the CGN and the subscriber. In these scenarios (and
similar ones), the internal IP address contained in the THIRD_PARTY
option is not sufficient to demultiplex connections from internal
hosts. An additional identifier needs to be present in the PCP
message in order to uniquely identify an internal host. The
THIRD_PARTY_ID option is used to carry this ID.
This applies to some of the PCP deployment scenarios that are listed
in Section 2.1 of [RFC6887], in particular to a L2-aware NAT, which
is described in more detail in Section 3, as well as in other
scenarios where overlapping address spaces occur like in [RFC6674] or
[RFC6619].
The THIRD_PARTY_ID option is defined for the PCP opcodes MAP and PEER
to be used together with the THIRD_PARTY option, which is specified
in [RFC6887].
2. Terminology
The terminology defined in the specification of PCP [RFC6887]
applies.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
3. Target Scenarios
This section describes two scenarios that illustrate the use of the
THIRD_PARTY_ID option:
1. A UPnP IGD-PCP IWF (Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway
Device - Port Control Protocol Interworking Function [RFC6970]).
2. A carrier web portal for port mapping.
These are just two examples that illustrate the use and applicability
of the THIRD_PARTY_ID option. While these are just two examples,
there might be other conceivable use cases. However, the use of the
THIRD_PARTY_ID option as specified in this document is restricted to
scenarios where the option is needed for the purpose of uniquely
identifying an internal host in addition to the information found in
the THIRD_PARTY option.
Both scenarios elaborated in this document are refinements of the
same basic scenario shown in Figure 1 that is considered as a PCP
deployment scenario employing L2-aware NATs as listed in Section 2.1
of [RFC6887]. It has a carrier operating a CGN and a Port Control
Protocol Interworking Function (PCP IWF) [RFC6970] for subscribers to
request port mappings at the CGN. The PCP IWF communicates with the
CGN using PCP. For this purpose, the PCP IWF contains a PCP client
serving multiple subscribers and the CGN is co-located with a PCP
server. The way subscribers interact with the PCP IWF for requesting
port mappings for their internal hosts is not specified in this basic
scenario, but it is elaborated on more in the specific scenarios in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
The CGN operates as a L2-aware NAT. Unlike a standard NAT, it
includes a subscriber identifier in addition to the source IP address
in entries of the NAT mapping table.
+--------------+ +------------------+
| Subscriber | | Carrier | ==== L2 connection(s)
| | | +--------------+ | between subscriber
| +......+ PCP | | and CGN
| +----------+ | | | Interworking | | #### PCP communication
| | Internal | | | | Function | | .... Subscriber-IWF
| | Host | | | +-----#--------+ | interaction
| +----+-----+ | | # | (elaborated
| | | | +-----#--------+ | in specific
| +----+-----+ | | | PCP Server | | scenarios below)
| | CPE | | | | | |
| | +-+======+ CGN L2NAT +--------- Public Internet
| +----------+ | | +--------------+ |
+--------------+ +------------------+
Figure 1: Carrier Hosted PCP IWF for Port Mapping Requests
Internal hosts in the subscriber's network use private IP addresses
[RFC1918]. There is no NAT between the internal host and the CGN,
and there is an overlap of addresses used by internal hosts of
different subscribers. That is why the CGN needs more than just the
internal host's IP address to distinguish internal hosts of different
subscribers. A commonly deployed method for solving this issue is
using an additional identifier for this purpose. A natural candidate
for this additional identifier at the CGN is the ID of the tunnel
that connects the CGN to the subscriber's network. The subscriber's
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) operates as a Layer 2 bridge.
Requests for port mappings from the PCP IWF to the CGN need to
uniquely identify the internal host for which a port mapping is to be
established or modified. Already existing for this purpose is the
THIRD_PARTY option that can be used to specify the internal host's IP
address. The THIRD_PARTY_ID option is introduced for carrying the
additional third-party information needed to identify the internal
host in this scenario.
The additional identifier for internal hosts needs to be included in
MAP requests from the PCP IWF in order to uniquely identify the
internal host that should have its address mapped. This is the
purpose that the new THIRD_PARTY_ID option serves in this scenario.
It carries the additional identifier, that is the tunnel ID, that
serves for identifying an internal host in combination with the
internal host's (private) IP address. The IP address of the internal
host is included in the PCP IWF's mapping requests by using the
THIRD_PARTY option.
The information carried by the THIRD_PARTY_ID option is not just
needed to identify an internal host in a PCP request. The CGN needs
this information in its internal mapping tables for translating
packet addresses and for forwarding packets to subscriber-specific
tunnels.
How the carrier PCP IWF is managing port mappings, such as, for
example, automatically extending the lifetime of a mapping, is beyond
the scope of this document.
3.1. Carrier-Hosted UPnP IGD-PCP IWF
This scenario further elaborates the basic one above by choosing
UPnP-IGD as the communication protocol between the subscriber and the
carrier's PCP IWF. Then obviously, the PCP IWF is realized as a UPnP
IGD-PCP IWF as specified in [RFC6970].
As shown in Figure 2, it is assumed here that the UPnP IGD-PCP IWF is
not embedded in the subscriber premises router, but offered as a
service to the subscriber. Further, it is assumed that the UPnP IGD-
PCP IWF is not providing NAT functionality.
This requires that the subscriber can connect to the UPnP IGD-PCP IWF
to request port mappings at the CGN using UPnP-IGD as specified in
[RFC6970]. In this scenario, the connection is provided via (one of
the) tunnel(s) connecting the subscriber's network to the Broadband
Remote Access Server (BRAS) and an extension of this tunnel from the
BRAS to the UPnP IGD-PCP IWF. Note that there are other alternatives
that can be used for providing the connection to the UPnP IGD-PCP
IWF. The tunnel extension used in this scenario can, for example, be
realized by a forwarding function for UPnP messages at the BRAS that
forwards such messages through per-subscriber tunnels to the UPnP
IGD-PCP IWF. Depending on an actual implementation, the UPnP IGD-PCP
IWF can then either use the ID of the tunnel in which the UPnP
message arrived directly as the THIRD_PARTY_ID option for PCP
requests to the CGN, or it uses the ID of the tunnel to retrieve the
THIRD_PARTY_ID option from the Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting (AAA) server.
To support the latter option, the BRAS needs to register the
subscriber's tunnel IDs at the AAA server at the time it contacts the
AAA server for authentication and/or authorization of the subscriber.
The tunnel IDs to be registered per subscriber at the AAA server may
include the tunnel between CPE and BRAS, between BRAS and UPnP IGD-
PCP IWF, and between BRAS and CGN. The UPnP IGD-PCP IWF queries the
AAA server for the ID of the tunnel between BRAS and CGN, because
this is the identifier to be used as the THIRD_PARTY_ID option in the
subsequent port mapping request.
+--------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Subscriber | | Carrier |
| | | +----------------------------+ |
| | | | AAA Server | |
| | | +-----+---------------+------+ |
| | | | | |
| +----------+ | | +-----+---+ +-----+------+ |
| | Internal | | | | +=====+ | |
| | Host | | | | ...........| UPnP IGD | |
| +----+-----+ | | | . +=====+ PCP IWF | |
| | . | | | . | +-----#------+ |
| +----+--.--| | | | . | # |
| | | . +========+ . | +-----#------+ |
| | | .................. +=====+ PCP Server | |
| | +------------------------------| | |
| | CPE +========+ BRAS +=====+ CGN L2NAT +------- Public
| +----------+ | | +---------+ +------------+ | Internet
+--------------+ +------------------------------------+
==== L2 tunnel borders between subscriber, BRAS, IWF, and CGN
.... UPnP communication
#### PCP communication
Figure 2: UPnP IGD-PCP IWF
A potential extension to [RFC6970] regarding an additional state
variable for the THIRD_PARTY_ID option and regarding an additional
error code for a mismatched THIRD_PARTY_ID option and its processing
might be a logical next step. However, this is not in the scope of
this document.
3.2. Carrier Web Portal
This scenario shown in Figure 3 is different from the previous one
concerning the protocol used between the subscriber and the IWF.
Here, HTTP(S) is the protocol that the subscriber uses for port
mapping requests. The subscriber may make requests manually using a
web browser or automatically -- as in the previous scenario -- with
applications in the subscriber's network issuing port mapping
requests on demand. The web portal queries the AAA server for the
subscriber's ID of the tunnel (BRAS to CGN) that was reported by the
BRAS. The returned ID of the tunnel (BRAS to CGN) is used as the
THIRD_PARTY_ID option in the subsequent port mapping request.
+--------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Subscriber | | Carrier |
| | | +------------+ |
| | | +------------+ | Web Portal | |
| +----------+ | | | AAA Server +--+ +--+ |
| | Internal | | | +-----+------+ | PCP Client | | |
| | Host | | | | +-----#------+ | |
| +----+-----+ | | | # | |
| | | | +-----+---+ +-----#------+ | |
| +----+-----+ | | | | | PCP Server | | |
| | CPE | | | | BRAS | | | | |
| | +-+======+ +=====+ CGN L2NAT +--+---- Public
| +----------+ | | +---------+ +------------+ | Internet
+--------------+ +------------------------------------+
==== L2 tunnel(s) between subscriber, BRAS, and CGN
#### PCP communication
Figure 3: Carrier Web Portal
The PCP IWF is realized as a combination of a web server and a PCP
client.
4. Format
The THIRD_PARTY_ID option as shown in Figure 4 uses the format of PCP
options as specified in [RFC6887]:
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 Code=13 | Reserved | Option Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| THIRD_PARTY_ID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Name: THIRD_PARTY_ID
Option Code: 13
Purpose: Together with the THIRD_PARTY option, the
THIRD_PARTY_ID option identifies a third party
for which a request for an external IP address
and port is made.
Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER
Length: Variable; maximum 1016 octets.
May appear in: Request. May appear in response only if it
appeared in the associated request.
Maximum occurrences: 1
Figure 4: THIRD_PARTY_ID Option
The "Reserved" field and the "Option length" field are to be set as
specified in Section 7.3 of [RFC6887].
The "THIRD_PARTY_ID" field contains a deployment-specific identifier
that identifies a realm of a NAT map entry. Together with a
THIRD_PARTY option it can be used to identify a subscriber's session
on a PCP-controlled device. It has no other semantics.
The "THIRD_PARTY_ID" is not bound to any specific identifier. It can
contain any deployment-specific value that the PCP client and the PCP
server agree on. How this agreement is reached if both PCP server
and client are not administered by the same entity is beyond the
scope of this document. Also, the client does not need to have an
understanding of how the ID is being used at the PCP server.
If an identifier is used that is based on an existing standard, then
the encoding rules of that standard must be followed. As an example,
in case a session ID of the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3
(L2TPv3) [RFC3931] is being used, then that identifier has to be
encoded the same way it would be encoded in the L2TPv3 session
header. This allows for a simple octet-by-octet comparison at the
PCP-controlled device.
[RFC6887] expects option data to always come in multiples of an
octet. An ID, however, might not fulfill this criterion. As an
example, an MPLS label is 20 bits wide. In these cases, padding is
done by appending 0 bits until the byte boundary is reached. After
that, the padding rules of [RFC6887] apply.
The option number is in the mandatory-to-process range (0-127),
meaning that a request with a THIRD_PARTY_ID option is processed by
the PCP server if and only if the THIRD_PARTY_ID option is supported
by the PCP server. Therefore, it should not be included unless the
PCP client is certain that a mapping without the THIRD_PARTY_ID is
impossible.
4.1. Result Codes
The following PCP Result Codes are new:
24: THIRD_PARTY_ID_UNKNOWN: The provided identifier in a
THIRD_PARTY_ID option is unknown/unavailable to the PCP server.
This is a long lifetime error.
25: THIRD_PARTY_MISSING_OPTION: This error occurs if both
THIRD_PARTY and THIRD_PARTY_ID options are expected in a request
but one option is missing. This is a long lifetime error.
26: UNSUPP_THIRD_PARTY_ID_LENGTH: The received option length is not
supported. This is a long lifetime error.
5. Behavior
The following sections describe the operations of a PCP client and a
PCP server when generating the request and processing the request and
response.
5.1. Generating a Request
In addition to generating a PCP request that is described in
[RFC6887], the following has to be applied. The THIRD_PARTY_ID
option MAY be included either in a PCP MAP or PEER opcode. It MUST
be used in combination with the THIRD_PARTY option, which provides an
IP address. The THIRD_PARTY_ID option holds an identifier to allow
the PCP-controlled device to uniquely identify the internal host
(specified in the THIRD_PARTY option) for which the port mapping is
to be established or modified. The padding rules described in
Section 4 apply.
5.2. Processing a Request
The THIRD_PARTY_ID option is in the mandatory-to-process range; if
the PCP server does not support this option, it MUST return an
UNSUPP_OPTION response. If the provided identifier in a
THIRD_PARTY_ID option is unknown/unavailable, the PCP server MUST
return a THIRD_PARTY_ID_UNKNOWN response. If the PCP server receives
a request with an unsupported THIRD_PARTY_ID option length, it MUST
return an UNSUPP_THIRD_PARTY_ID_LENGTH response. If the PCP server
receives a THIRD_PARTY_ID option without a THIRD_PARTY option, it
MUST return a THIRD_PARTY_MISSING_OPTION response.
Upon receiving a valid request with a legal THIRD_PARTY_ID option
identifier, the message is processed as specified in [RFC6887],
except that the identifier contained in the THIRD_PARTY_ID is used in
addition when accessing a mapping table. Instead of just using the
value contained in the THIRD_PARTY option when accessing the internal
Internet address of a mapping table, now the combination of the two
values contained in the THIRD_PARTY option and in the THIRD_PARTY_ID
option is used to access the combination of the internal Internet
address and the internal realm of a NAT map entry.
If two or more different tunnel technologies are being used,
precautions need to be taken to handle potential overlap of the ID
spaces of these technologies. For example, different PCP client/PCP
server pairs can be used per tunnel technology.
5.3. Processing a Response
In addition to the response processing described in [RFC6887], if the
PCP client receives a THIRD_PARTY_ID_UNKNOWN or a
UNSUPP_THIRD_PARTY_ID_LENGTH or a THIRD_PARTY_MISSING_OPTION response
back for its previous request, it SHOULD report an error. Where to
report an error is based on policy.
6. IANA Considerations
The following PCP Option Code has been allocated in the mandatory-to-
process range:
o 13: THIRD_PARTY_ID
The following PCP Result Codes have been allocated:
o 24: THIRD_PARTY_ID_UNKNOWN
o 25: THIRD_PARTY_MISSING_OPTION
o 26: UNSUPP_THIRD_PARTY_ID_LENGTH
7. Security Considerations
This option is to be used in combination with the THIRD_PARTY option.
Consequently, all corresponding security considerations in
Section 18.1.1 of [RFC6887] apply. In particular, the network on
which the PCP messages are sent must be sufficiently protected.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED to use PCP authentication [RFC7652] unless
the network already has appropriate authentication means in place.
The THIRD_PARTY_ID option carries a context identifier whose type and
length is deployment and implementation dependent. This identifier
might carry privacy sensitive information. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED to utilize identifiers that do not have such privacy
concerns. Means to protect unauthorized access to this information
MUST be put in place. In the scenarios described in this document,
for example, access to the web portal or UPnP IGD-PCP IWF MUST be
authenticated. Generally speaking, the identifier itself MUST only
be accessible by the network operator and MUST only be handled on
operator equipment. For example, creation of a PCP message on the
web portal or the UPnP IGD PCP IWF is triggered by the subscriber,
but the actual option filling is done by an operator-controlled
entity.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6598>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3931>.
[RFC6619] Arkko, J., Eggert, L., and M. Townsley, "Scalable
Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface
Bindings", RFC 6619, DOI 10.17487/RFC6619, June 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6619>.
[RFC6674] Brockners, F., Gundavelli, S., Speicher, S., and D. Ward,
"Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack Lite Deployment", RFC 6674,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6674, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6674>.
[RFC6970] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and
Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control
Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)", RFC 6970,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6970, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6970>.
[RFC7652] Cullen, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and T. Reddy, "Port
Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism",
RFC 7652, DOI 10.17487/RFC7652, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7652>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for many valuable suggestions, in
particular for suggesting a variable length for the THIRD_PARTY_ID
option. Thanks to Dave Thaler, Tom Taylor, and Dan Wing for their
comments and review.
Authors' Addresses
Andreas Ripke
NEC
Heidelberg
Germany
Email: ripke@neclab.eu
Rolf Winter
NEC
Heidelberg
Germany
Email: winter@neclab.eu
Thomas Dietz
NEC
Heidelberg
Germany
Email: dietz@neclab.eu
Juergen Quittek
NEC
Heidelberg
Germany
Email: quittek@neclab.eu
Rafael Lopez da Silva
Telefonica I+D
Madrid
Spain
Email: rafaelalejandro.lopezdasilva@telefonica.com