Helllo Pui, Thanks for the pointers but I think you misunderstood my question. I know how to set up a captive portal for WiFi access.
What I wanted to know is how are users logging into captive portals when the browser has a proxy set and it tries to send all requests to the proxy server which until they authenticate to the captive portal they cannot reach ? Eugeniu On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Pui Edylie <em...@edylie.net> wrote: > Hi Eugeniu, > > You could use the inexpensive Mikrotik User Manager > > http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Introduction > > http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:User_Manager > > http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Getting_started > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blEGv5i-aO4 > > Good Luck :) > > Edy > > On 12/6/2013 3:14 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> How do you handle captive portals in hotels and other venues where you >> first have to login into the portal and then have Internet access ? >> >> This is my biggest woe right now in this regards with any kind of proxy >> settings I can push to users. >> >> Thanks, >> Eugeniu >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We currently use CCWS (previously ScanSafe) with the Anyconnect client. >>> Nice solution. Whether your in the office or remoting from a >>> Starbucks, >>> the traffic is always proxied. We went with the solution because of a >>> couple reasons: >>> >>> 1. with multiple egress points on the corporate network, we didn't want >>> to >>> be down if we lost a proxy server. >>> >>> 2. corporate laptops whether in the office or at Starbucks would still be >>> proxied. This helps limit our virus and malware infections. and >>> provides >>> HR reports. >>> >>> 3 split tunneling would be an option because the traffic doesn't have to >>> come back to your internal proxy. >>> >>> 4. our remote home office bandwidth is very limited, so using the cloud >>> it >>> provided for better use of that bandwidth. >>> >>> all and all it's a good solution. I'm not going to tell you that we have >>> not had any issues, but with any new solution, there will be a couple >>> bruises along the way. >>> >>> YMMV >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Herro91 <herr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also >>>> known as ScanSafe. >>>> >>>> Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now >>>> >>> called >>> >>>> Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in the >>>> >>> cloud >>> >>>> that would potentially negate the requirement to have a full tunnel >>>> (i.e. >>>> allow split tunneling) for teleworkers? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >>> > >
