Re: [Captive-portals] time-based walled gardens

[David Bird <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Doffing my co-chair hat and speaking as a general Internet citizen, I too
>> would oppose such a thing.  We could end up with some kind of IETF
>> Signalling System 7 where we ask the network if we're permitted to make a
>> connection for each and every new connection like some kind of circuit
>> setup.
>>
>
>
I'd argue that no network can guarantee you a route to your destination. A
walled garden might be an extreme case, but it could be extreme either
direction; really small or large. ICMP Dest Unreach is already giving the
client feedback on drops and network restrictions; route and firewall. I
think the only limitations are in software :)


> As a working group member, I do wonder how we might prevent abuse of any
> "solutions" we design.
>
>
I think 'abuse' in this case is a relative term, and can apply to public
access networks and their users.


> As a co-chair, I'm wondering whether, in addition to
> draft-nottingham-capport-problem, we need a document describing the
> limitations of any potential solution space.  (How does a client OS prevent
> malicious apps costing the user money by auto-extending a billed session?
> et cetera)
>
>
If we don't have an API, how would an malicious app extend the session?


> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>
>