IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] [MIF] captive portal was RE: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6418 (3057)

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 22 December 2011 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75E321F8B2A for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oR-UIac3nmn for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AB321F8B29 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000::67]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B642721F07; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:42:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4EF341E1.3090709@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:42:41 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
References: <20111222000527.5A49F72E004@rfc-editor.org><CC003F2F-4A8E-4A53-B854-49EB47DB83B8@lilacglade.org><AE3B6A20-80EA-49C4-82D7-79EC93873445@nominum.com> <4EF33927.6000306@viagenie.ca> <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462021AB120@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <1562467B-392E-464F-9286-B870E976B3ED@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1562467B-392E-464F-9286-B870E976B3ED@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mif@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [mif] [MIF] captive portal was RE: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6418 (3057)
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:43:17 -0000

On 2011-12-22 09:18, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> I'm not an expert in captive portals but I think NAT based solution is as rare as DNS based :-) Captive portal are usually based on HTTP redirection.
>
> that is also my understanding: HTTP redirection is widely used.

NAT is not "rare", at least at the places I go I see it quite often, but you're 
right that HTTP redirection is very common, probably more than NAT.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email