|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> In-Reply-To: <1acba345-0280-4c13-8119-329d8287a7da@zimbra.network1.net> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:38:16 -0400 To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net> Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > Very nice. I wonder if this is an option we could try to use in future = meetings. It makes sense, really, since we already have decent = connectivity for the conference areas, and we wouldn't be destroying the = hotel's outside connection (only their WiFi ;-) ) With enough leverage in the contracting process, you may be able to=20 get them to agree to allow such (particularly since it can be next=20 to impossible to get a configuration clueful person involved early=20 in the process...) Whether they can actually deliver (i.e. do they have any control=20 over their own wireless network, any onsite staff that actually=20 knows networking, etc.) plus the potential liability that results=20 from changing that configuration is entirely another matter. =20 Nearly every hotel you contract with for the first time results in=20 a different scenario, but I agree it is worth keeping in mind for=20 the hotels that have competent on-site access since diverting the=20 hotel room traffic for conference attendees improves performance for everyone. /John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |