IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sun, 17 November 2019 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 D9123120077 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 gITcp8Yhh4Ez for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (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 6CA74120043 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id g50so16041876qtb.4 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:39:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=33pGl2Zt5oHlnPbEks2w0wybDVMfkK9s7pgGCs7SCNU=; b=CKIHqmPQkuLebQ24mXNhaN5prthpOZ2pN+zhmSLswBKQr0jssMPeW2YT7OcEawCjGu B7hBv3WgKsyuHO7kQlFBu867J/1icjP86QzOTv28/0FOOLqNkBYPA9W84tTfG9nF1Js1 41lZ2YwRyf+d0m6679ov244zKp15GCzsDFE6vdKeCb2Qg3z9u/NMZy3LOvdNl/gGfWXo wqEdrE8WiueD+HhCstfRkAFmqrX0foxuWuEygfuJNi2eAn1oqeQmElJlaYMCFQUDsUhd 3C/4Y707h14TB8d8LMQnjbZRYJB/daXW0q8xyujOjGpFm4r9/Z2Ysr4OMw6s74Sif0TT 0VRA==
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=33pGl2Zt5oHlnPbEks2w0wybDVMfkK9s7pgGCs7SCNU=; b=NGAarMQz2iandlB8cNpm6+QkQX++a+32JI0bY8FSDQSsTrn0ZzWbHZTgbmGo+HIsN/ SdxZlD0N/VEa1demkNRNcWeXNkOfQ/HnNN1nhfvx4shgKrobG4HCrWI1Xz8m4QTmjh8Y DP/02qkvZEME5Z42OimRB9A8BVB2yWcoJBdDfBEXOQlACUfRIKtuqE+JaJLx9egyXVPX 2P/wtQ+12JeYgeoFEELMQd9ugz9Rh6Kr+xYtm/1eC6Y9HO7oG+2A4RcSNnG3LmQvzcxf crNHu7ZhwG5t+5uc62AWsv7he4Z6imDi7729iYiPJeKcg4vL7mEFldScWoYWpym9BCU2 1bxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVz3b80AGUSYHBJbsuf4CDGTKHZveb6tZmfjkjQAgEd4EKKaa2P wdwpF6CKmPEdKQ2O+vkw/lJQxx/lHv/EyI8upLI4yA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGqaiengb3CwQ2WPU+A7DYesZb3Koy/QbIpzgmyxJXsaapAVkIHxhS91KbFTmtSBmwoUAPeTO/V838U57Q7EQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4454:: with SMTP id m20mr21700300qtn.77.1573965577953; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:39:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL9jLaa+GzjEcfKc=j7=iROowfE2+rS5P9JKJ5kdMTWyJFjpjg@mail.gmail.com> <10608.1573959806@dooku.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <10608.1573959806@dooku.sandelman.ca>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:38:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLqbo=DHDCXB=7FC3+aPeWK6i_5QBzn1jVTO8CgJq-g5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, captive-portals@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029beab0597836b69"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/gnsQtngjumeE7LibmL1wljVcHKw>
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 04:39:42 -0000

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:03 AM Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> 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?



So, I had a very brief chat with IANA about this - because the assignment
is in an RFC, changing it will be hard - it would require deprecating
RFC7710, and publishing a new one with just the port changed...

Seeing as RFC7719bis is almost done (hopefully!) it seem to me that it
would make more sense to just ask for a new port in that.

What would be interesting would be to try figure out if the next few codes
(162 - 174) are “clean”.

E.g: Wyze seems to squat on 162, 163 is
“Cisco-client-last-transaction-time” (?), etc.

The current conflict with Polycom seems really bad (People having remote
meetings often travel with polycoms). We really shouldn’t let
squatters-rights drive our decisions, and I don’t think that conflicts with
others will be as bad....

W

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>
-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email