Re: [Captive-portals] [OPSAWG] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 10 July 2019 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 1B41E120251; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 MiEnXlVsK-dt; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628E912029F; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807AE3808A; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:50:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457275BE; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 20:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "mud@ietf.org" <mud@ietf.org>, captive-portals@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190709194614.pbqcbi7dvk75w4ms@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49CD8C1@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAFpG3gc4ijy+xH7O_9EzpzwcROu3XcTA4xpSAH9P+oyhWQzMyg@mail.gmail.com> <4486.1562683318@localhost> <7534958E-E1A6-470D-B4BB-6B88CD27B54C@cisco.com> <27334.1562697538@localhost> <20190709194614.pbqcbi7dvk75w4ms@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:53:00 -0400
Message-ID: <19049.1562719980@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/xu7W6BWoUKP4lQUM5pw2DVwyrls>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] [OPSAWG] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 00:53:11 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
    > would an ICMP "administratively prohibited" not be a sufficient
    > signal? Sure, things can be made much more complex, but I doubt that
    > devices will try to actively investigate why they can't communicate

Probably good enough.  Some wanted a more specific signal.

It's intended to just be a signal to go ask the captive portal API
if the device is captive.

    > (and implement additional protocols for this) if all they can do at
    > the end is to change the color of an led or simply shut-off (i.e.,
    > stop assuming its a temporary network issue and reduce/stop probing
    > effort).

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-