Captive Portal IPv6 Support
github.com
Captive Portal IPv6 Support
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#2[deleted]
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#3As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#4As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
Is there even an alternative to captive portals?
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#5As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
Is there even an alternative to captive portals?
Just give internet access directly.
Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#6As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
CGNAT is ok for IPV4 because it provides us some level of protection against state ( sponsored ) actors.
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#7As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
Is there even an alternative to captive portals?
... use regular authenticated wifi?
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#8As much as we need infrastructure to move us all the way to IPv6 (no more CGNAT please!), I'm not sure I want more captive portals in the world. I'd much rather an addition to the WiFi standard to support interactive login, though I suppose that would be hard pressed to come by now.
CGNAT is ok for IPV4 because it provides us some level of protection against state ( sponsored ) actors.
You’re going to have to explain that one.
I don’t see how CGNAT does anything but allow easier access to attacks (using private ip space outside of the local network)
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
CGNAT is ok for IPV4 because it provides us some level of protection against state ( sponsored ) actors.
You’re going to have to explain that one. I don’t see how CGNAT does anything but allow easier access to attacks (using private ip space outside of the local network)
All the details can be found in the EUROPOL publications begging for it to be banned.
Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there even an alternative to captive portals?
Just give internet access directly. Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.
What if legal wants to show a TOS page, or you want finer grained authentication than a shared key?
>Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.
Travelers don't typically have gigabytes of bandwidth to spare. I for one like having unmetered internet access even when there's theoretically internet access available through roaming (absurdly expensive) or esims (expensive)