Re: [Captive-portals] A final check on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
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 62D593A0ED7 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Yx1DHFk4c3O3 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ABFD3A0EDB for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 109so2049999otv.3 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 11:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YzdNFwD7yhlzhxKaOPsodLks80JHUox6/TlxUkhTkVY=; b=tqZMsoDdKyCS3AKHEAZntSm2owPbk+rK3yMfSF+IXdJt5BV3UFqVIfMnG/86YxlJFH P5JbUeeAQzyYDv1yBT2877P5IlI4W0tsCTzGil6uuEmRXoQxwGOV6FbDWJjMo0F/FFLH WNevf0yp6Lce+42tg7g/xjzpWZ+585JvcNd2+2fGxrOVa9JsoqD7MAEMlpqlIvqptUFT oOkKifjGDUtR+5PkjZ45ZKmhbefRrpd4f4IfqIUTPi38ZAJS6ZY+8NtPvDoZEFCw9OBR sc/nJ8CDI7iCknUVUioyGW1Wj7BOB0TtY1eSJIMXRtbTzyUPu3ZgC2AQOOjvg1uOsJi4 VRxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YzdNFwD7yhlzhxKaOPsodLks80JHUox6/TlxUkhTkVY=; b=JWt94Y/yQxkAm2dk5dmNgfBsxInAh9lMgDk8Ed53LmXMjWHlS/hB+9pUKzBDyNTN9B Nu8Tstsxpqyc5vMsSqhQly2GvjAkT2OpG4r3aAouwZuQKp3E6wpVNb7+r9zIiV7eq4eo B/dgvA/ge0rCIneJm7gf52nNdDHlkE8NjbTYVPbrrtVXaN9QtT7qbk4ZuxynqKkRHID/ KmTn6SUXBXE6fUol2RriB9tH0FtKOdbZnrrUENWDduP4S0yQ7CrnBAuQ9Viu94JFlVMV xiE9fSBCzXwCtVMCrDcDkSHWB6mRBLvcJHoVS589f2YWXky+tMfHWQ1SGQOvXcHTHXQT 6G/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530I21MjNghAMqOhKKje+uOohBF/r52xyeioJpSkm+n+cEOv6YGs TWaDVaWehtiSuuuciHFQRJssOzROp1E32dImUBQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJvE7SJLwpZYyW7Y6yoRn0Ikqfy09IjB/ruH/vphfdEFqLEiWMzHBiw1LUffU/LOAR9fQfER3/8AokG57AP3c=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7319:: with SMTP id e25mr2559402otk.155.1598985325490; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b666d3af-fcf6-4534-be01-7e7441d0d6d2@www.fastmail.com> <CAMGpriXiwEWov__Ha+-t0vTiJnOCob=bpu_d2bqTV=8UwWq-_w@mail.gmail.com> <b0b852b014d7033f3801b612c0bbe6cb@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <b0b852b014d7033f3801b612c0bbe6cb@acm.org>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 11:35:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriX5zym4Dr7u6nQpB-8rad+29JE9aL83UgYHYJBfrT_RNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ddolson@acm.org
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000053b54e05ae44c864"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/RrFndlxElpWQ2tb5o5EXH0V4lqk>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] A final check on draft-ietf-capport-architecture-09
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:35:27 -0000

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:49 AM David Dolson <ddolson@acm.org> wrote:

> How do such devices obtain IP addresses?
>
>
In IPv4, this would be NAT.  The first host to connect would probably pass
the captive portal for all other devices, but only because of the
HTTP-intercept technique.  No clients would see the API URL, and they would
never be able to learn the venue URL

In IPv6 it's more complicated, and largely not yet addressed.  With Proxy
ND, the downstream clients would see the RA/DHCPv6 option(s).  With
64share, the same is possible but would, I suspect, be
implementation-dependent.

Arguably the domain of Captive Portal solution is limited to the case when
> the agent assigning IP addresses is controlling access to the network as
> well.
>
> -Dave
>

As we've currently scoped things, I agree.

The more I think about it, the use case I had in mind (capport
implementation in an ISP's modem/CPE) would probably require things we've
not yet completed.