Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

Iljitsch van Beijnum <> Mon, 28 July 2008 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF893A6A31; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948C83A6A31 for <>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bt+MtRoUiQLR for <>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6942F3A69D6 for <>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6SMBkNX063355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:11:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
To: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:11:57 +0100
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"

On 28 jul 2008, at 22:56, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote:

> In addition, no hotel networks are made for this kind of crowd. They  
> are
> made for "business people" who just download their e-mails. Not for  
> the
> hotel full of geeks running everything from bittorrent to something  
> they
> wrote last night after the bar. So, making it work would mean  
> upgrading the
> whole network - not an option.

> So, please, let's stop bashing our host about something they have  
> given us
> extra!

I find this a rather condescending attitude, especially as the powers  
that be have deemed it necessary to select a venue that pretty much  
precludes any choice on the part of the participants.

I'm sure the people from the host, the regular volunteers, and maybe  
even the hotel people, are working quite hard to get everything  
working as well as can be expected. (My 60% packet loss has cleared up  
nicely, thanks for that.) But that doesn't mean we don't get to point  
out shortcomings for fear of someone taking it personally.
72attendees mailing list