Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP

• To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
• From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]>
• Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 01:02:34 +0000
• Archived-at: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/nJAmmSgMqd75vKiGzsfR3wcjx-s>
• Authentication-results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
• Cc: [email protected]
• Delivered-to: [email protected]
• Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rNS+NbLGd8BXNdaPLRmq4XEMMCrKRsrYr07QUhZ6CFM=; b=SIfGsF1bVvcrI0f1OEz5UBqBLEKgx3lNoExlOpUxbui2aUQz12hLb2ayMH5GVVXSy3 GEA3A9H3QvCAQ21RXV3knAtxXzDT1pyDphTC62CiUC43M7vXfcgIN+Sqvp382ECEfNQL HyinVXe0OkUTctuGC4JxHAypsAHnzsOxPKW+ZB332oF53fF6uSzIFxQYOPpiUdnh/+LE KD7qHJZjEZKNIoyNGign1wwV0gdPJhBjRWCMw9XSiR7thfs+2gM4fN1pvmoD4LJmmOcT KQIOTLmDOy/bshzDYtjE1L04wCfX8Xklbx3fLlXy6hAmuBYfp736aDDX4VvHAb0jVkFt R34w==
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
• List-help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
• List-id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
• List-post: <mailto:[email protected]>
• List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
• List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
• References: <[email protected]om> <[email protected]> <[email protected]om> <[email protected]om> <[email protected]>

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:06 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Have we considered TCP RST already? (I don't think it's better than ICMP,
but
> I don't remember it being discussed yet)

We can now if you like.  But not all protocols use TCP.

David (Bird) listed some of the things that are in common usage: ICMP
DestUnreach (no specific code), TCP RST, and dropping packets.  Each have
different characteristics.  I think that one product of the discussion in
London was that we don't need to be restricted to choosing from that set if
we think that there is something better.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
    • From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
    • From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
    • From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
• Next by Date: Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
• Previous by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
• Next by thread: Re: [Captive-portals] Signals from the network and ICMP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread