IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6418 (3057)

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 22 December 2011 14:05 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 B088321F8AC9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 4C950qQJ7bYy for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECF921F8ABB for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000::67]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64B8E21CC2; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:05:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4EF33927.6000306@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:05:27 -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: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <20111222000527.5A49F72E004@rfc-editor.org> <CC003F2F-4A8E-4A53-B854-49EB47DB83B8@lilacglade.org> <AE3B6A20-80EA-49C4-82D7-79EC93873445@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE3B6A20-80EA-49C4-82D7-79EC93873445@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>, "<denghui02@hotmail.com>" <denghui02@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] [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 14:05:59 -0000

On 2011-12-21 19:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Isn't this talking about captive portals? If so, then *after* authentication you
> get unmodified DNS and HTTP; before authentication, you get forged DNS responses
> that force you to the captive portal.

Just for the sake of discussion...

Captive portals that modify DNS responses are exceedingly rare. Usually, captive 
portals work by NATing the destination address of packets emitted from clients 
having an unauthenticated link-layer addresses. The reason, I presume, is that 
DNS responses get cached by the OS and/or application, so sending "wrong" DNS 
responses to clients just doesn't work well.

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