IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] DHCP/Captive Portal Experiment at IETF106 - SIN

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 November 2019 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB0312011F for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:09:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hdv-yxa0zbGL for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58A9D120048 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:1ca0:aaff:fe40:7c9]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE8951F450; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 0DF15132F; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:09:55 +0800 (+08)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: ek@loon.com
cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAAedzxpQmALHovWbKu9bUh8w1xXZskXFnAuh1wUu-BhBSYN0ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL9jLaa+GzjEcfKc=j7=iROowfE2+rS5P9JKJ5kdMTWyJFjpjg@mail.gmail.com> <10608.1573959806@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAAedzxpQmALHovWbKu9bUh8w1xXZskXFnAuh1wUu-BhBSYN0ag@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> message dated "Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:27:15 +0900."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:09:55 +0800
Message-ID: <18112.1574042995@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/AcLACAOGX78lfoeNsC8d4jU09S8>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] DHCP/Captive Portal Experiment at IETF106 - SIN
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:09:59 -0000

Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> wrote:
    > Some of the comments in that thread seem very disappointing and
    > aggravating even (saying they'll use 161 if they need to, for example,
    > which is allocated for MUD).

DHCP options are not hard to get.
Polycom should know better.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email