[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Captive-portals] IETF 100: ICMP Discussion Summary



{did not make it in person, and had a conflict and I haven't watched the
session on youtube yet}

Kyle Larose <[email protected]> wrote:
    > - Question was raised about whether we should restrict the number of v6
    > addresses (one address, one prefix, etc).

Was there any consensus?

I don't see a way to restrict the number of v6 addresses per UE except via stateful
DHCPv6, and few use that.

    > - I recall something about restricting the UE, API server and ED to be
    > on the same link (or provisioning domain?) from the UE's perspective to
    > simplify the passive identification. Didn't see it in the notes,
    > though, so I may be imagining it.

The term provisioning domain is probably more precise.

    > - There seemed to be general support for a simple form of the ICMP
    > option (i.e. keep it a simple notification of a problem, rather than
    > communicating further state within it). We need to work on what exactly
    > this entails, and what we lose by taking out the more advanced
    > capabilities (i.e. maybe first round has the simple methods, but we can
    > add more extensions as the base technology is adopted).

+1

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature