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: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:58 AM To: George, Wes Cc: iaoc@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx 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 > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf