Erik Kline wrote:
> Some of the comments in that thread seem very disappointing and
> aggravating even (saying they'll use 161 if they need to, for example,
> which is allocated for MUD).
DHCP options are not hard to get.
Polycom should know better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Christopher Morrow wrote: > During
>> setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk > setup
>> an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the > IETF
>> SSID to test your shiny new DHCP option(s) for captive portal, >
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:03 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > During setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk
> > setup an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the
> > IETF SSID to test your shiny new DHCP
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 12:03, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > During setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk
> > setup an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the
> > IETF SSID to test your shiny new DHCP
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> During setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk
> setup an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the
> IETF SSID to test your shiny new DHCP option(s) for captive portal,
> information about that is detailed
Howdy!
During setup at the IETF meeting this week in Singapore the noc folk
setup an experiment on the IETF wireless network, specifically on the
IETF SSID to test your shiny new DHCP option(s) for captive portal,
information about that is detailed here:
