Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > would an ICMP "administratively prohibited" not be a sufficient > signal? Sure, things can be made much more complex, but I doubt that > devices will try to actively investigate why they can't communicate
Probably good enough. Some wanted a more specific signal.
It's intended to just be a signal to go ask the captive portal API
if the device is captive.
> (and implement additional protocols for this) if all they can do at
> the end is to change the color of an led or simply shut-off (i.e.,
> stop assuming its a temporary network issue and reduce/stop probing
> effort).
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
