This is also my main reason for meeting hotel – Internet access!!!
Roni
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 7:15 PM
To: John C Klensin; Ole Jacobsen
Cc: wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; irsg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: R: R: [BOFChairs] IETF 94 - Registration and Hotel Information -
no availablity
On 8/16/15 14:08, John C Klensin wrote:
In years past, when we have had a small venue or venue-connected
hotels, we've arranged contracts so that there are really two or
more "official" (even if not all "HQ") hotels, hotels with which
the IETF has contracts that cover relevant policies, Internet
access, etc.
...
Since you seem to be the one giving reassurances, what are the
actual Yokohama arrangements on the spectrum between "official"
and "nearby"?
I'll note that there are different things that people seem to have raised
concerns about here, although the one that I've found most relevant in the past
remains unmentioned. For the most part, we replace the Internet backhaul on the
official hotel with our overprovisioned pipe that has been arranged for the
meeting [1]. This typically leads to a three-tier internet access setup:
* Conference hotel: flawless or nearly flawless Internet connection
* Overflow hotel(s): the Internet is completely unusable
* Nearby hotels: the Internet connection is kind of a craps shoot,
depending on the number of participants who end up there, and the capacity of
the Internet link the hotel has
/a
____
[1] Maastricht was a notable exception, and the results were as predictable as
they were frustrating.