Re: [Captive-portals] A new draft / idea - draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach

I am really a big fan of having the ability to pass FQDN as a DHCP option. I assume all un-authed users will have access to DNS. There are some edge case scenarios will this will fail, especially in mobility situations where a roams between 2 of the same SSIDs that have a different DHCP

Re: [Captive-portals] A new draft / idea - draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach

David Bird wrote: > The risk of requiring certs for the CP-NAS interface is that WISPs will > probably just use self-signed certs and make the user suffer the > browser warnings... (Or, worse, they will not use the spec and everyone > has a Legacy experience).

Re: [Captive-portals] A new draft / idea - draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach

On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Roscoe, Alexander wrote: > I am really a big fan of having the ability to pass FQDN as a DHCP option. I > assume all un-authed users will have access to DNS. There are some edge case > scenarios will this will fail,

Re: [Captive-portals] A new draft / idea - draft-wkumari-capport-icmp-unreach

To clarify, there is a CP access controller (let's call this CP-NAS) and a CP web application (and this CP-WEB). The DHCP option could return the IP address of the CP-NAS (if not the same as the default gateway). We can then define a .well-known URL, such as