IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Sun, 17 November 2019 03:03 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 5D7E6120835 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:03:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 upRYoC1tryzY for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:03:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB333120834 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:03:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8f1a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.143.26]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA261F451; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 03:03:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E44A0109F; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:03:26 +0800 (CST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
cc: captive-portals@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAL9jLaa+GzjEcfKc=j7=iROowfE2+rS5P9JKJ5kdMTWyJFjpjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL9jLaa+GzjEcfKc=j7=iROowfE2+rS5P9JKJ5kdMTWyJFjpjg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> message dated "Sat, 16 Nov 2019 17:09:03 +0800."
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:03:26 +0800
Message-ID: <10608.1573959806@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/PF-2Qo6YxgjKHQW1cUBTE9rwu0A>
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 03:03:31 -0000

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
    > During setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk
    > setup an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the
    > IETF SSID to test your shiny new DHCP option(s) for captive portal,
    > information about that is detailed here:
    > https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/wiki/CAPPORT

    > So far, during our setup we noticed Polycom conference phones are
    > 'unhappy' with this DHCP option (over ipv4). The Polycoms appear to
    > believe that option 160 is for 'boot file location' :( Ingesting a json
    > file for booting makes the Polycom sad :(

So, did they squat on this option, and should CAPPORT ask for a new number?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email