CAPPORT Architecture
draft-ietf-capport-architecture-00
Internet Engineering Task Force K. Larose
Internet-Draft D. Dolson
Intended status: Informational Sandvine
Expires: April 1, 2018 September 28, 2017
CAPPORT Architecture
draft-ietf-capport-architecture-00
Abstract
This document aims to document consensus on the CAPPORT architecture.
DHCP or Router Advertisements, ICMP, and an HTTP API are used to
provide the solution. The role of Provisioning Domains (PvDs) is
described.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 1, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Larose & Dolson Expires April 1, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CAPPORT Architecture September 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. User Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Provisioning Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. DHCP or Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Provisioning Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Captive Portal API Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Captive Portal Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. ICMP/ICMP6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. Component Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Solution Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Initial Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Conditions Expire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Trusting the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Authenticated APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Risk of Nuisance Captive Portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. User Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
In this document, "Captive Portal" is used to describe a network to
which a device may be voluntarily attached, such that network access
is limited until some requirements have been fulfilled. Typically a
user is required to use a web browser to fulfil requirements imposed
by the network operator, such as reading advertisements, accepting an
acceptable-use policy, or providing some form of credentials.
Implementations generally require a web server, some method to allow/
block traffic, and some method to alert the user. Common methods of
alerting the user involve modifying HTTP or DNS traffic.
Problems with captive portal implementations have been described in
Show full document text