> From: "Mitch (WebCob)" <mitch at webcob dot com>
>  Manuel - any opinions on an extention interface like I described?

Fwiw, Manuel expressed his opinion on the hotspot (aka captive portal) topic
(not an extension interface) as summarized here:
http://socalfreenet.org/book/view/59 (from
http://m0n0.ch/wall/list/?action=show_msg&actionargs[]=25&actionargs[]=14).

As a tracking / focal point to try and get this feature added, I set up some
pages here:
http://socalfreenet.org/captivewall
which have been added to by several people (including Dana from
nycwireless.org who would also like to see this. In there are several ideas
on how this might be done and links to existing implementations that may be
good starting points.

We're running several Soekris boxes with m0n0wall and the only features
we're really missing *for our needs* are captive portal and Atheros chipset
support (its in FreeBSD 5.1).

Having spent many hours recently configuring Pebble,
http://socalfreenet.org/80211arelaypebble, to do the same thing as I can
configure almost trivially in m0n0wall,
http://socalfreenet.org/standardapm0n0wall, i'd love to see this project
move ahead, but my time and skillset dictates otherwise for now :-(.  Glad
to see I'm not the only one who wants it.

Note, I am also taking greater heed of Manuel's recent comments that he
thinks the best AP solution is to add an external AP hooked up to the
m0n0wall via ethernet. Unfortunately cost often dictates otherwise, but I'm
beginning to embrace this concept more and more...

cheers, michael