IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hotel situation

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Wed, 16 December 2015 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327081A1B65 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:09:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTHF50DXQx7I for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8131A1B53 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:8c0f:9046:e051:21a5] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:8c0f:9046:e051:21a5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3B295408FB; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:09:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:09:21 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <69F43094-1ADB-4474-92B4-B706A0F964D1@puck.nether.net>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zLVnne4ssv9sgXUm9qzfsd2fNfw>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:09:25 -0000

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> 
>> We already have a list of hotels which will.
> We do?  This is news to me.   If you mean "hotels that have in the past," I don't think that's any guarantee.

I can say that the perceived PITA and “cheapness” of other groups I’ve been part of made at least one hotel make it more difficult to return.  They wanted to add ancillary charges, including a “charge to use the fiber you built in our property last time”.

I’ve posted on this before, there is a list of the largest hotels out there.

Review this list and if you exclude anything that says “Las Vegas”, I suspect you may have heard of an IETF or similar conference at them.

This list is almost exclusively places that have more than 1k rooms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_hotels_in_the_world

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email