I agree with Cullen (except that I don't love the taste of dog food). Asking for IPv6 might be a good idea, but the full group of IETF participants as a group aren't the right people to negotiate hotel contracts, and finding a hotel that is reasonably priced and has the capacity to host an IETF appears to be hard enough as it is.
Ross -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:58 AM To: George, Wes Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: IPv6 support in hotel contract? We just failed to manager to find a venue in Asia because there was no venue that meant all the constraints. I'd rather not add more constraints to the hotel selection. I love the taste of dog food, but v6 in the hotel is not something that I find critical to accomplish the task I come to IETF to get done. On Oct 20, 2011, at 7:01 AM, George, Wes wrote: > My last message caused something else to occur to me - there has been a lot > of discussion both here and at NANOG about hotels being woefully > underprepared for the internet (and address) use that their guests generate > when a conference full of geeks and their multiple devices per person descend > upon them. Sometimes the IETF is successful at convincing the hotel to let > them take over the internet service in the guest rooms, sometimes not. > > Perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone by starting to require IPv6 > service in the guest rooms when we enter into negotiations with hotels. If > they don't have it, we'll be happy to temporarily take over the internet > service, or assist them in getting it enabled permanently in their existing > network, and if neither of those options are acceptable, it provides > negotiating leverage on other things. This also has the net effect of > starting to make it clear to hotel management that IPv6 is going to start > being mandatory for some subset of their guests before too much longer. > > I realize that having something in the contract doesn't mean that we're any > more likely to get it. But the fact that it's in the contract makes a > statement in and of itself. IAOC, any reason why this couldn't be added, > especially given how far in advance you're negotiating with venues? > > Thanks, > > Wes George > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
