Re: RFC 8910
Ÿnérant <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:26:57 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.dhcp.isc.dhcp-client |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <335068cc7782aef4a5d2417f0dabc2e439d2ecc7.camel__11665.9101493255$1650468441$gmane$org@crans.org> |
Thank you. My requests didn't include the option 114 indeed. I tried to ask it, and the server answers me correctly. It is now time for me to see how clients deal with this information. Thank you! Regards, -- Yohann D'Anello Le mercredi 20 avril 2022 à 10:57 -0400, perl-list a écrit : > The server will only send these options if the client asks for them. > In the discover or request packets from the client, have a look at > option 55 (parameter request list). If that list does not contain > option 114 or 160 then the server won't send them. Even if the > server did send them without being requested, the client would likely > ignore them not knowing what to do with them. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ÿnérant" <[email protected]> > > To: "Users of ISC DHCP" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:04:00 AM > > Subject: RFC 8910 > > > Hello! > > > For my organization, I am using isc-dhcp-server as DHCP server. > > > We want to deploy a captive portal for a new open Wifi to > > authenticate > > users. However, we want to do it great, and avoid to do Man-in-the- > > middle attacks to access the portal. The RFC 8910 let the DHCP > > server > > to send an API URI that indicates the presence of a captive portal, > > and > > let the clients to detect the presence of a captive portal and the > > URL > > that let them to authenticate. > > > However, I think that the RFC is not implemented yet. The RFC > > replaces > > the RFC 7710 (which added a captivep-portal-url option) and the RFC > > 3679, which added a default-url option. The present RFC overwrites > > this > > option, number 114. > > > I just added in my configuration the following options: > > > option default-url "https://example.com/api.json"; # 114 from > > RFC3679 > > option v4-captive-portal "https://example.com/api.json"; # 160 from > > RFC7710 > > > These are recognized by isc-dhcp-server. But when I launch the > > server > > and add a client, I don't see any of the two options when I analyse > > the > > DHCP packets (with tcpdump or Wireshark for example). Did I make > > something wrong? Is there something unimplemented? > > > One more question: does someone know how clients react to this DHCP > > option? Who really cares about this URL? When is the client > > informed > > that there is a captive portal, and how is they redirected? > > > Regards, > > > -- > > Yohann D'Anello > > > -- > > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support > > subscriptions. > > Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. > > > dhcp-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users -- ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. dhcp-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEJdXulk2Vu6/+tirpOnXFWBnIz4UFAmJgJkEACgkQOnXFWBnI z4UKqQ//V77V09iu0SDECnfIuAOtqqgeYuu6BBOTxzbiuFdnOaS02FBhkMMC/niH b/lEVPWnEFRfnTo63Lbf89XhS1N5q95xOODkfGw4lhUt0F6EqEIPhUVsSAhXbZ5m blYWNhpeIh6CJ/SMQCkUudq98pPEuCtXgh6TT68VxfNiF7WOvPP58WkoJs0nX0h8 OK1tSc12FaUjGFjQ8hVikMzAJYDaSarwmR0VG+mtEgCEHfs5aBEAQ045Nnt5ilIt F3xzRpZG0tXXT/dry6b5QWNhm5EG4SNg8dhRVJquCE8QpA9tPV14BrXJr24Ueg+K U4sb2n/Jd8n4c4bxflOOKF22rAIyNNxJW9AUSiuu00I/a2y9ISVfExr+1Hde3WI8 7vpOtGUG0tQZCNRbt0TSOLsd7P2sKLEwS+HJlD3FXTJC6XND0TDi/XrysdEeH0mF lg3kygH0BNdurgQ80N9uG1cxGaIIG7Tiezc2cS8+nxzzKiNadjQASWBMg1q4qhrZ DwVRH3vZbWirpiCIQLNvgw8b2l7iytEyE3YnlchDjSSfYigqUS5jJT6BWr7qr2cr 0yXXn6QCICBtjyZYSvclsaIsO7cmSQB011EfVtFHbowZZfnnFSKW8Z9xXngd8eSU ATwPqjwhhb44rPnsaSwZbr5BoQtWFq+9UIsgOpSDJIYU2Hc9z2g= =Q8ws -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----