Captive Portal IPv6 Support • Hacker News Board

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#31

Post by gavinsyancey » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 5:58 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #22

zamadatix wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interactive auth sounds attractive at first but it's really the wrong place for an answer once you look at all of the ways captive portals are used (i.e. more than just "check this agreement box"). You really need the power of the browser to display a custom form behind the solution or you end up with n+1 solutions instead of replacing captive portals. Something like a DHCP option or NDP option ends up being a lot mo…

A DHCP option would be the correct way to specify a captive portal on a LAN. We have DHCP options for tons of things: IP phones, TFTP servers, cable boxes. One more option for a captive portal authentication URL would properly inform clients that there is a captive portal and how to access it. (It being a URL means it can also specify the protocol, so you aren't even locked into web browsers) My assumption is this wa…

There is a DHCP option for a captive portal URL. It isn't very well supported and nobody uses it.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7710

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#32

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 6:18 AM UTC

jacobaul wrote: post #26

thwarted wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says right in the readme: This project is licensed under the MIT License. I hope everyone benefits from this open-source project for the development of IPv6.

The readme of repository includes a paragraph suggesting that companies should reach out for a commercial license. For an MIT licensed codebase that is unusual. I believe the top-level commenter is assuming that discrepancy is by mistake and is giving a heads up. From the readme: >Note: Companies interested in purchasing a license to use the source code commercially can contact this number on WhatsApp

[deleted]

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#33

Post by gavinsyancey » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 6:29 AM UTC

gavinsyancey wrote: post #31

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A DHCP option would be the correct way to specify a captive portal on a LAN. We have DHCP options for tons of things: IP phones, TFTP servers, cable boxes. One more option for a captive portal authentication URL would properly inform clients that there is a captive portal and how to access it. (It being a URL means it can also specify the protocol, so you aren't even locked into web browsers) My assumption is this wa…

There is a DHCP option for a captive portal URL. It isn't very well supported and nobody uses it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7710

Apparently, there's a newer one that is supported by Android 11+, iOS 14+, and macOS Big Sur, at least

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8910.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8908.html

https://developer.android.com/about/versions/11/features/cap... https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=q78sq5rv

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#34

Post by sulandor » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 6:30 AM UTC

somerandomqaguy wrote: post #30

snvzz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just give internet access directly. Or do not offer internet access at all. People carry their own already-connected devices anyway.

16% of Canadians in 2022 didn't have a data plan on their phone, according to Statistics Canada. Roughly 6 million Canadians or so. So not everyone. Actually a decent number of people that don't.

seems easy to confuse % of plans with % of ppl. probably a lot of obscure use-cases in there

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#35

Post by sulandor » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 6:35 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #13

coretx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the details can be found in the EUROPOL publications begging for it to be banned.

IIRC there was some hullabaloo made with RIPE in ~2017. Half of it was "go to IPv6 and it isn't a problem" and the other half was "or also log the source ports so we can complete the identification through CG-NAT". It's nearly 8 years later, we haven't moved to IPv6, and they stopped making noise so I'm left to assume they either got more source port logging or found some other method?

politics still clinging to the idea of identifying ppl by obvious traffic meta-data

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#36

Post by WatchDog » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 6:42 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #11

As a heads up your project is MIT licensed - that means companies do not need to reach out to purchase a license for commercial use. It might make sense to change that to an offer for official support (or relicense the project to meet your desires if applicable).

SQLite is public domain, but they apparently get enough enquiries about purchasing licenses, that they offer a warranty of title.

https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#37

Post by immibis » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 7:18 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #18

snvzz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if legal wants to show a TOS page? The reality is that nobody wants to bother with any of that. Either just connect me to the internet without extra steps, or don't at all. Don't waste my time.

>The reality is that nobody wants to bother with any of that. I don't either, but for IT departments in large organizations, ignoring the legal department isn't an option.

Gues they just won't provide access then. Oh, what's that? There's a reason they need to provide access? Well, too bad the IT standards people invented a way to make sure we didn't interfere!

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#38

Post by immibis » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 7:22 AM UTC

Uptrenda wrote: post #24

This is really cool. Nice work and I find the MIT license you've chosen to be interesting. I chose the very same license for my own open source project because I wanted there to be few excuses not to use it. Damn, you've done significant work on this. Will have to check this out more in depth.

Indeed. MIT license means you are working for large corporations for free, if your software is useful. As a capitalist parasite, I strongly support its use.

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#39

Post by richrichardsson » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 7:31 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #11

As a heads up your project is MIT licensed - that means companies do not need to reach out to purchase a license for commercial use. It might make sense to change that to an offer for official support (or relicense the project to meet your desires if applicable).

Was going to make a similar comment.

> Note: Companies interested in purchasing a license to use the source code commercially can contact this number

and then

> This project is licensed under the MIT License.

I guess they didn't understand the MIT license and what rights it confers.

Re: Captive Portal IPv6 Support

#40

Post by chikere232 » Wed, Oct 23, 2024, 7:50 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #19

stephenr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or you want finer grained authentication than a shared key? Configure your access points to use RADIUS or SAML for auth?

Is WPA enterprise authentication still a dumpster fire? Last time I set it up it was still a hassle because you had to import CAs and manually choose the authentication protocol. Definitely not a good experience for someone who's stopping by a cafe for 30min and wants wifi.

If someone makes you import a CA, you have to assume they intend to eavesdrop on ssl encrypted communications. Enterprise WPA doesn't require it.

The right flavour of incompetence might get you there without bad intentions but really if you give someone the capability of eavesdropping you have to behave as if they're intending to use it