I have to agree with Rick here. Owen
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 22:43 , Rick Astley <jna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>