Re: [OPSAWG] [dhcwg] AD sponsoring - draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-07

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> is this needed when you have 802.11u?
>
> I've never actually seen an example of 802.11u in the wild.   Have you?

Not that I know of...

> What I see in the wild are layer 3 solutions based on spoofing.   It would certainly be worth investigating this question, but I think even if 802.11u did see wide deployment in large WiFi network scenarios, this would still be useful for the coffee-shop scenario.

I've just spent some time going through the .11u / WiFi Alliance
Passpoint stuff (200page PDF, sells for $199.00!), and it seems like
it would be overkill for many situations. It may be a good fit for a
large provider, willing to roll out all of the needed back end stuff,
etc but doesn't seem like a great fit for coffee-shop / doctor's
office / hotels we go to, etc. It also seems like it will be a long
time till this would be rolled out everywhere - the draft is simply a
DHCP option that should be trivial to add.

In addition, not *everything* is wireless - when I go to a hotel the
first thing I look for is the wired jack, because hotel wifi is often
less than brilliant.

>
>> does it conflict or should it be integrated with the prefix properties inhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00
>
> It seems orthogonal, but it sounds like you think it's not, so it might be worth you exploring that a bit more!

I had a look at it, it expired in Jan 2014, as a -00, so I'm guessing
it is not likely to progress. It didn't seem like it would really fit
well - I think you *could* assign a well known color to flag "you are
behind a CP", but I see an easy way to put in the URI, etc..

>
>> what's this proposals relationship with MIF's PVDs?
>
> I think it's orthogonal.   This doesn't really change what a hotspot network looks like--it just makes it possible to flag a network as a hotspot network without any skullduggery.

Yup.
This is really meant to be a *simple* solution that allows the captive
portal to tell the client where to go to authenticate.

W

> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf