IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> Sun, 17 November 2019 04:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 1FB68120041 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:27:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=loon.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 RFIQT9iuXJJx for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (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 722BC120837 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id n1so15527919wra.10 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:27:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=loon.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=7wE61DGPvfxfR+Vbwlxv2gFMUsc77n7pYIIhFrBHhNw=; b=LevLvV7ZW+5ycIb6kBNRUOEK1xaOsvermhEQtdOxVmO67PmJi3Q2ynfhlTLaABSRlo K5aWl+4CCEPSG2DMRMmO0CI7d+MT94y7SFBOZiRTMarXEdBI5vLIGv0SBy5QC4rv9WdU II/QO7LOEkBdo96nMP+mdv4DRTWoCIxE1Q0cA=
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7wE61DGPvfxfR+Vbwlxv2gFMUsc77n7pYIIhFrBHhNw=; b=QTUyPSBC/ZKtnZw2A5orhZwMHZvFg0kPIW9Y8kRWqL8fE1Y+90MJS2bPhJBkxBkRkI 108Mq2px8jFeDDgvEe6i2ZHo3H205ZcWdWjgU0GTAScZazeKKSevug7W4goNE62p0aMc 9GSq/qpg/wqlK4UzDJI6l+m+ZQ+ynYg5ejlHAe04WAKR4/SR8QpEBL9YxMdWVQIzXkPL WWefTMz8qs73cdeYfJsX4OXWNlyvzIF/l0P0jeAbNd0bGKLOSvOi/dIQSa7aM3iSfniM BBewffdqDMbP+P6YyD0vxWLe32l/Y5UcX5R78OEjZpJItSbHfWJQPQDhgiGw0kW2WX47 5oZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWsXCVHv78rwpdOxWdJifDnn0x7xvkJ+7fr357AcadF+UpFGrHS 4CxqCBkKx9J/UjnhE+bc3rMijU35BJYObXQ32s3gbw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYkUCaL4ouJy6pcVF+80jbgWsaqnbn/a0akrcEI1bYPf86/hIlGVfA35eaae5gW8fJpnaUckoemh45OmkhUuA=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ecca:: with SMTP id s10mr24131024wro.22.1573964846512; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:27:26 -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>
Reply-To: ek@loon.com
From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:27:15 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpQmALHovWbKu9bUh8w1xXZskXFnAuh1wUu-BhBSYN0ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, captive-portals <captive-portals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009129930597833ff4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/nfUG-2pddlVlAASg_n06zG7Wbh0>
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 04:27:30 -0000

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 12:03, 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?
>

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).

We could ask for a new option, or we could decide that it's not a big
enough problem in the real world.  I've added this to a slide for
discussion on Wednesday morning.

<no hats> I think my first inclination would be to speculate wildly and
without data about whether the anticipated intersection of Polycom and
captive portal networks is big enough to worry about.  I mean, technically,
they're "holding it wrong"...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email