I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection (both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and discussions that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of similar critique aimed at large routing vendors was "Help! My big expensive router is really expensive" at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. Perhaps the critiques were seen as more constructive and I don't remember the same backlash after the talk but I found both talks and various discussions that followed insightful.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Golding <dgold...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm - as far as whether this was a good or bad NANOG presentation...this is > some of the best discussion I've seen on list in a while. There is a frank > exchange of views between many different parties. This may result in some > follow-up presentations at future NANOGs by IXP operators (please!). > > Seems that, whether you agree with Dave or not, it was successful. It also > seems that the IXP operators who came under the most criticism have reacted > with a lot of professionalism and maturity. Other IXP operators have > reacted pretty poorly, which is ironic. > > Dan >
