IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 23 December 2019 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 B7AF6120CDB for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Y43yNFhI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=qG+bG9Sk
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 kytF8gEvJ3g2 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8291812004C for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:27:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21376; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1577129265; x=1578338865; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UvENUePUp9cPoOg5JSQow8hkihFNjXJnuAz0fUkdn7I=; b=Y43yNFhI58+liBBQSEriay2EwKEvGTd4IZbNZqHFRbssWMfWCI90lH0w hD69G43B9/aAFlpbBFr0hbhR7YRqkeDWXah9E1zB8ansRcTCFe7P9QkBs JbBgi/X/ysBgYFF6WPMh4Bm1MXO3e1EOvQRMrkMYIWsoSyrCUMdG1L0ls E=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:6/fVARPN54ely1f6gU4l6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEuKg/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQF0r/PtbhbjcxG4JJU1o2t3w=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AKAAAbFAFe/5NdJa1kGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFoBQEBAQELAYEiLyknBWxYIAQLKgqDfoNGA4Rahh+CX5MnhGGBLhSBEANUCQEBAQwBARgBCgoCAQGDe0UCF4IHJDQJDgIDDQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTcMhV4BAQEBAwEBEBEKEwEBLAsBDwIBCBABBAEBKAMCAgIlCxQJCAIEAQ0FCBqDAYF5TQMuAQIMogkCgTiIYXWBMoJ+AQEFhRgYggwDBoE2AYwYGoIAgRFHgkw+gmQBAQKBJS8PFRYJgloygiyNe4I/hVeZAwqCNJY0gkaYEY5SgUaZEAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUjmBWHAVO4JsUBgNjRKBJwECB4JChRSFP3QBgSeNAIExAYEPAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,348,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="688452092"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Dec 2019 19:27:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBNJRi5p012092 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:27:44 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:27:43 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:27:42 -0600
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:27:42 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dEnn9CPNadQ4HjOoleEtNKw4NRS0c7KvxTlUyZc0iTh9MZlItUmytXGg8nHCLYNh9b8CpjVG0YBuQQX6T4HoFQr2Aa17wDcHcChqP73IFUefTK2mJMu4PsJjfURmCM4X7r7UG4O7jDuRbT3B3boZBrU5rFFktmVxVmFQGXutmGOBC2ZTwjDdPILDKCdU3ZRyCNBSAmneZvnv21mAtnZHpfYqq+jPyc0nCKiKniwAZo5ZBnd+ZDFr3lB/M9SLff5lRqFlXP675jmosUgWj3/Y1OfEFFOWkGWI6xPVLBxs1sPsMatVkZyaDDcwBLCB+jCLCDF6E4W4ncH5aVpzuBb0rw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UvENUePUp9cPoOg5JSQow8hkihFNjXJnuAz0fUkdn7I=; b=a/BzL7wSU/pmXELFi/3qYq5Xxw/3VxkoRXLNuLfQbdSvHE6P60mXlDDwlt6eQnkrhAGvSPeWAsN4M3DfukXMTn3hW7AlQ1xYnaa7sXzrzKmjp4d8grXaueIyiip8LnOeR3OpmrPZGzmbk956NLCd6hP9AQj1uQ9vZJSBF6oYJYn1jg+nV9BQzb9ijsajy68zZFnQh7TzKLzKp2IfTrNrd6qSYItZ5JvG5ch1XGMNUImnLJL8ry8JyYDcnb1sayDw8HkfHFbGDq+6WvOxk6EDPA0sch1OOPzSD9cB7ueiLKrrM94EEzwO7A4Yh9/LVVptwv3kmqkkN+cxMNGOCI9uMA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=UvENUePUp9cPoOg5JSQow8hkihFNjXJnuAz0fUkdn7I=; b=qG+bG9SkmA3lioQixBzmlgN54ynbHLESsqA+R1FZaIozJtSJW6TmIv+iabCFjNWuK3nDhVuNiqH8i6c+m6gP6J8rbwt3gfng0hxpcm7lLJETNdFyF4xifdjj3XlaQFS8KVIHxhbNlqpAg4zwIaifsCjNCDil+3gVNkHgr8IhXwg=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.126.158) by DM6PR11MB3756.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.229.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2559.16; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:27:42 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::997f:5e0b:e1c2:2746]) by DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::997f:5e0b:e1c2:2746%2]) with mapi id 15.20.2559.017; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:27:42 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "tpauly@apple.com" <tpauly@apple.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Thread-Topic: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict
Thread-Index: AQHVtuDGm7BHqa7w/UedxE47kzlMkafDJrTwgAAn1oCAAEvtAIAB7R4AgAJ/ugCAABNHAA==
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:27:41 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB413791A02517F481815C5353CF2E0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr2yvqqw=APnyAb=gygR5KK6U7tcx3STGa9e6a8kJYO03w@mail.gmail.com> <150E4F32-236A-4D59-B74C-36BF523DCE55@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <150E4F32-236A-4D59-B74C-36BF523DCE55@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=volz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.77]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0f3c7de9-88f9-4d07-93f4-08d787de2dfe
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3756:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB3756F164BD2A357708BAF076CF2E0@DM6PR11MB3756.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0260457E99
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(346002)(136003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(5660300002)(2906002)(66476007)(33656002)(64756008)(66446008)(76116006)(966005)(66556008)(66946007)(316002)(7696005)(8936002)(478600001)(186003)(110136005)(55016002)(81156014)(71200400001)(53546011)(52536014)(54906003)(4326008)(8676002)(6506007)(26005)(81166006)(86362001)(9686003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB3756; H:DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: QaDec85IrL1Vi+K0TUKUYUAcB2U6lM9iI5uDmDpc78V7vrWIGeKPKBaJjeDmOcN0XpgTFdG8y+SEIie5Ui1MloLwm7EcBedCeMU5BtBaSlfUg3j2/7YukcGPBd4V+8w5DsDIXhyB0F5pi9pVKndwPQXGZZkdfSyN9mcW6I5F2G5kvN/WxDkwm7M3Uf6X3NeKIDjibHILTgJJ+5lw604XD5E5blMi/8atWu5fN9mbOdA/ACfOEbaYRnFuGN8DlCprhKH/epz1SfMPwiQALQHgbZR0KQXqcVYTn6maMWGgYxI5StjF2cW/wxxGyV8AOm+CfLwc/IkRhnpB/8PL/xG0LcsiG5B4h3teQWiX7U78s2VaCKY/HMkUgbzayI23adFjooc8KumH8VqyfEWdlHSkH4m8XCIc4Y6uDkedkj2siak5Yb5BEWLhVZ6oFLLR5+0du2rGqNMTLgoj36BwXWwAm6ymXuSBZicRkYIwetsUsyQ=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR11MB413791A02517F481815C5353CF2E0DM6PR11MB4137namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0f3c7de9-88f9-4d07-93f4-08d787de2dfe
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Dec 2019 19:27:41.9483 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: +2M9M9FCGLmcW1uVBZ9j4EeEQQ+JUi4O0p3ww9Sn+LEnuNh+edFeIBo2NuWk9jv3
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3756
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.15, xch-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/XDWkfRNESRyYaJ6ytiHknULd0wo>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict
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, 23 Dec 2019 19:27:48 -0000

Hi:

OK, good to know. I had thought that there was support for using option 160 in implementations as RFC7710 was published in December 2015.

I guess Warren will need to update the bis document to request IANA to assign a new DHCPv4 option (replacing 160) because of the potential conflict regarding its use – likely it would be useful to give some short justification for this (about the conflict). Likely the listing for option 160 will need to be something like:

160         DEPRECATED (see new-option-code) - DHCP Captive-Portal           N             DHCP Captive-Portal       [RFC7710]
160         Polycom (vendor specific)

It may also be appropriate to request IANA assign 111 (if still available) as it has no reported use and is in the original (<128) IANA assigned space (as per RFC2132).

BTW: Code 115 (which was listed as used by failover in RFC3679) could also be a good choice as I am pretty sure it this was ever used (and if it was, it was for failover communication and not normal clients; and that use has long been deprecated).


  *   Bernie

From: tpauly@apple.com <tpauly@apple.com>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 12:58 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; captive-portals@ietf.org; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict




On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, 07:53 Bernie Volz (volz), <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
1) It would not really remove the overlap for a long while (until all of the clients that used the "old" 160 Capport option are upgraded). So, devices will still need to deal with it for a long while.

Do any clients or networks actually implement 160 to mean capport? I know that iOS and Android, which seem most interested in this option, do not yet.

I am not aware of anything using the option yet. iOS does not use it; we used it for interop testing, but that is not in production code.


If they do not, the right thing to do would be to get a new option code, and do so as soon as possible so the implementations that are being written this year can immediately start using the new one.

I would also urge that if we want a new code, we allocate it soon so that the implementations can quickly test it out and ship the right value.

Tommy


_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
Captive-portals@ietf.org<mailto:Captive-portals@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email