Le mardi 20 mars 2018 à 09:07 -0700, David Bird a écrit : > > > > > 3. The notification should not be on a per-destination basis. A > > > > hint that conveys the information "you can reach facebook, but > > > > to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another service plan" is not > > > > technically infeasible but is unlikely ever to reach WG and IETF > > > > consensus and therefore I think we should not spend our time > > > > talking about it. > > > > > > > > > > Can't a network have this policy irrespective of how we implement > > > ICMP? Can't they even today just use existing ICMP messages? I > > > cringe when we start dictating how PUBLIC ACCESS networks manage > > > their walled garden and businesses. > > > > > > > My point was that there's no use in having that discussion, because > > we know there are strong opinions on both sides and thus we're not > > likely to get consensus. > > > My point is that you are the one *making* this a discussion not likely > to get consensus by loading the question with statements like "you can > reach facebook, but to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another > service plan" ... which isn't a problem with ICMP per se, rather how > you don't like how some public access networks operate...
Yes, this is a strawman scenario. Entities that sell plans sell will just parcel out bandwidth for stuff you haven’t paid for, they don’t need such a mechanism, the entities that need it are networks where some accesses are restricted for work or legal reasons. Most walled gardens will want something like 'free access to pr.institutionalsite.com/intranet.mybusiness.net/library.school.com', downloading gigs of videos from youtube requires autorisation, sex.xxx.com, playingatwork.net and examsolutions.cheater.org are forbidden. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
