^ Top

NANOG 29 Survey Results

Chicago, Illinois

Attendee Survey Results

Your comments and suggestions will help us plan future meetings. Thank you!

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one) 
Very useful (65) Useful (130)   No opinion (3)   Not very useful (4)   Useless (0) 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better (46) About the same (64)  Worse (3)  N/A (80)

How did you like the program (the Monday-Tuesday General Session)?

The choice of topics was: 
Well Chosen (65) 1  (112) 2  (19) 3  (4) 4  (0) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (50) 1 (99) 2 (45) 3 (7) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were: 
Excellent (45) 1 (122) 2 (32) 3 (1) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

Please give us your comments on the program.  
If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speakers's name. 

80% of the presenations were too high-level.  The content was just not there. In addition, the security "surprise" was not well received.  Public humiliation can be effective, but only if it's supported by explanations of the right way to do things.  This was absent.  

aside from the way the APs were setup (bad for windowsXP users) this was the best Nanog yet.

Danny McPherson, vijay gill were outstanding. network security talks were generally very weak, especially NSA talk.

Excellent job handing the Verising fiasco

Good focus on security.

Great program.  Hope that I can attend a hole lot more.

Great program....  would have like to "hear" how ISPs dealt with the recent worms and viruses.  Do they oversized pipes/cpu/etc, or are the helpdesks having to manage getting consumer PC's cleaned, or are they just disabling the cumsumers' connection?/

I had to think about it for a while, but in the end I think that the "it's a surprise" talk was over the top, in poor taste and displayed at best questionable ethics.  In particular, it's clear that the presenters were reading others' mail, which in most sysadmin circles is a clear ethical breach, and at many employers (including U-M for one) is cause for disciplinary action.    To some extent the behavior of the presenters can be excused since their intentions were good.  However, "the ends justify the means" is not a strong or time-honored defense.   Anyway, I thought that the email reading that clearly went on pushed it over the top from justifiable to wrong.  I'm also disturbed that Merit permitted -- even sponsored -- this kind of misbehavior.    Note that I say this from the sidelines.  I protect all my email traffic with crypto, none of my mail was read.    On a related note, I found Randy's microphone monopolization during the presentation to be particularly unhelpful, especially in light of the fact that he wasn't even one of the listed presenters.

I just have to say i love the energy that Rob Thomas has, he really is something to look forward to.

I like programming to be more mixed.  Maybe more BOF's Not have a block of all security, but mexed through out. 

I like the ATDN

I liked the research oriented talks:  reliability-AT&T  Global stability index- Dartmouth  and the AOL-ISIS Conversion talk

I particularly like the section on research and measurements

I suggest Toastmaster's International

I think Rob Thomas moves around too much.  Maybe he should sit still.  Good talker; bad moves.  I don't want to see people dance.

I wanted more detail in the technical portions

I was disappointed that Versign did not answer anything but technical questions.  Not surprised, but disappointed.    The problem is everyone knows how it works and what it did and what it broke, we wanted to know things like why they complained they had to turn it off without a comment period, but they did not seem to have a problem turning it on without a comment period.

I would have liked to have heard more specific imformation on best practices.  I thought all the speakers were very informed and willing to answer questions.

Implementing a secure Network Infrastructure(Merike Kaet)  It deals subject of security on Network Infastructure  It's tipic was great, but it was boring, because it just showed basic information on various security protocals, no depth, just sneak peak that was all

In general the level of the program has been a bit low.  It would have seemed better on an advanced level

It is unfortunate that time doesn't allow for more questions- maybe an online question back for the speaker?

less paranoia, more content please

MED presentation was good  More operational presentations may be interesting

MED talk was common knowledge  Router config checking talk was interesting and useful Good stuff. Router views update was helpful. TV stuff cool. 

monday's stuff only:    router configuration panel was very useful.  that stuff was definitely not general knowledge for me, so that was cool.    web of trust was useless; most people know how PGP works.   anomalous DNS behavior: data was interesting, but the presentation could have been more clear    simple router security panel was also very good.  good mix of people on the panel, and good mix of topics/perspectives.    passive health monitoring w/BGP is bogus.  as we know, route existence does not correlate all that well with path reachability, packet loss, etc. (metrics that matter) for many paths.      other than that, the research forum was good.

Needs more technically advanced material  Less security security security

Please ask people to put important text at the top of the slide, not the bottom, can't see it there

Presentation times are way to short for the presenters to present any real good content, rather than a quick pass through.

Really enjoyed AOL's talk on their IS-IS migration.    It's always education and highly entertaining to hear Rob Thomas talk about anything related to security.

Rob Thomas' presentation was great!

Rob Thomas was very entertaining and knowledgeable scheduling him right after lunch was perfect.

Rob Thomas's presentation was excellent. Great presentation

Rob Thomas's talk was a big eye opener for me.

several speakers had too small voice like a bird. I cant heard them.  

Some audio problems (the last speaker on testing routers was *very* loud).  

Some of the operational discussions seem a bit antiquaited and somewhat basic considering the audience.

Some of the speakers need to work on their public speaking ability. The information is great, but delivered so poorly, it's meaning is lost.

Some of the speakers were reshed because they had too much material for the time alloted. Guidance to speakers?

Surprise, probably on of the best presentors to date

Team cymru rocks

the boring talks should be moved to early in the AM. Reduce number of talks a bit, have more time for discussion.

The depth and breadth of experience displayed by the speakers was inspirational.  The candor with which the speakers presented potentially sensitive data was refreshing.  I hope this is something that will continue to further Nanogs.    And lastly, the schedule was quite well organized and deployed.

The nsp-sec bof was a little less useful this time, but the pgp key signing was better, gotta get more people doing that. 

The research forum was excellent.  Allof the topics were interesting and highly relevant.  The BDIC talk was especially pertinent.

The security tutorial was not well structured and was not really about securing network infrastructure. Some of the presentations would have been improved by  more examples of real-world networks.

There seemed to be quite a bit of whining about the Versign Site Finder issue.  People need to let it go and grow up a bit ...

This is my first NANOG but I will be back again next year!!!  We found this to be a very good set of presentaions.

This was my first NANOG and I was surprised by the focus on two areas: security and configuration MGT, some of the material was vague and it seamed to focus more on research than on operations. Finally all the presentations should have been downloaded, on the web,before they spoke

Tutorials should be held at night on week-days, no Sunday .

verisign talk descended into acrimony without really resolving anything... 

Very relevant, timely discussion of networking concerns and issues.  My one suggestion would be to allow more time for questions/discussion, especially on topics that are expected to be contraversal, or will generate a lot of audience interest.

Vijay's OSPF-ISIS migration is a great network migration template that everyone here can apply to their own situation.  Rob's router security talk was funny, but serious and needed to be said. Useful tools exposed during this meeting.

Was my first NANOG, speaks were all excellent and are unmatched at other conferences in this area.

We don't need presentations on security I can go to a security conference fot that

while i marked down "about the same" as a comparison it isn't a bad mark for conference organizers - just a statement that you're doing a good job each time.

While most of the program was quite informative, I found the "It's a surprise session" unethical in its presentation. While I am a big proponent of security awareness there is also a reality that a number of us are in a situation where we can not implement perfect security. To expose those people's credentials on an overhead and potentially force enterprise-wide very cost impactuous changes is in my opinion unethical and if I were in a position where this would affect me I would consider having my employer seek legal liability actions against the organization under whose onus this was executed. 

Would like even more operational talks

How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (49)1 (64) 2 (29) 3 (10) 4 (1) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (32) 1 (54) 2 (38) 3 (15) 4 (3) 5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (41) 1 (57) 2 (31) 3 (7) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory 

Please give us your comments on the tutorials.  
If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speakers's name. 

a third option would have been nice  better planning for laptop users (power) would have been nice

all in reference to the one tutorial I attended- IP anycast

although I did not attend them all, I bounced back and forth and found the level to be way too introductory.  I know several were introduced as such, but was surprised at how basic the level was.

Are the presentations from Merike Kaeo's tutorial available?

bof

Didn't attend any tutorials - nothing above a beginner level.  Not sure if advanced topics are seen as in scope for Sunday.

Didn't make it to Chicago early enough to attend the tutorials.

Good discussions on AnyCast

I attended "implememting a secure network infrastructure-Merike Kaeo- the sessions were excellent and were at the right lebel of detail.

I attended the anycast IP tutorial, it was OK, but with a little more effort from the speaker, it would have been great. Also, the room was too low, slides were hard to see in the back. Speaker should have had a mike around his neck, now every time he turned around, he stopped speaking into the mike making it hard to hear.

I attended the three security sessions. These session could probably have been compressed into two.

I didn't attend the tutorials.

I enjoyed 2/3 tutorials but the Network Infrastructure tutorial was too general.

I liked the fact you ran the tutorials on a sunday.  It would be nice to have the totorials in rooms woth tables though.

I was particularly impressed with the MPLS and IP Anycast tutorials.

I would prefer them during the week instead of Sunday.

I would prefer them during the week instead of Sunday.

I'm still waiting for Merike's presentations.  She indicated that she would get them onto the NANOG site, but ...    The 2 1/2 hour break between the 2nd and 3rd tutorial sessions was EXTREMELY LOOOOONNNGGG.  I decided I would skip the last session and get some sleep instead.

Ina Minei was great Get her to do more. The sedcurity one was long winded and tried to cram too much in. Too many security buzzwords, not enough how-to stuff.

maybe upaboard

Need advanced tutorials. Most attendees are familiar with beginner/inter. materials already.

Network Security: The talks had a very broad coverage but went sometimes too much into details forgetting to explain the general aspects.

Phil Smith is alwasy great, but i would love to see a higher level of bgp training.

Phil Smithis tutorials are always good. MAS was technical enough,but the topic was less useful for me . I heard the 3-part security talk wasn't too great.  Deployying v anycast ws good

phil smith's BGP troubleshooting tutorial was very clear; could have been 3 hours instead of 1.5, so he could have gone into some more subtle details

Security presenttions on Sunday were very poor.  Speaker appeared to have little appicalble experience.

security tutorial was too broad of a topic.  Need to be more focused on topic in order to get to the proper level of detail.  Merike did a very good job

Technical details were good, but examples of application could be more comprehensive.  To much "tech" and less "how to apply this to accomplish this in a network. I want a security tutorial

the general session: the level has seemed low.  It has been on and introductory level.

The level of detail was great, it wuld have been nice if they were more technical

the security tutorial was too basic and too long.    how many more basic mpls tutorials do we need. would like something with more substance.

The sunday turtorials should include some advanced topics..

The turtorials are completely uninteresting for non-novices.

The tutorials were billed as "introductory", and I think the level of detail was appropriate for an introductory tutorial.  It would be nice if there could be intermediate or advanced tutorials on some of these topics in the future.

there should be an entry for not applicable

There was no microphone used at the MPLS tutorial (as far as I could tell) and it was difficult to hear from the back half of the room.

Thought security talk could use more detail

Too bad they weren't recorded so we could pick up the ones we missed.  I attended the three part series, and missed the other three.

Tutorials should be given more time. It was clear that for the MPLS applications overview the speaker ran out of time and was unable to go into depth.  The multi part model used by  Securing your Network Infrastructure may be the answer

Tutorials should be held at night on week-days, no Sunday .

Would like more operational stuff and stuff for people starting up ISPs. A Best Practices tutorial would be great

How did you like the BOF?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (44) 1 (44) 2 (40) 3 (3) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (31) 1 (52) 2 (20) 3 (6) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (38) 1 (50) 2 (18) 3 (3) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory 

Please give us your comments on the BOF.  

Audio should be downloadable after from web page.

Couldn't attend - the meeting is short, the evenings are a major part of "networking"

did not attend

didn't attend

Didn't attend BOF's

Excellent face-to-face exchange

Excellent. Let's do it again. Probably better than the peering BOF's.    Should be encouraged to to do the PGP Key signing again as well. Encourage Presenters to attend the Keysigning - They are the "spokespersons" who have the most industry visibility.

good stuff- alot more hig level( ~ 10,000 foot) view

I think maybe if a BOF is going to be continous,there should be an intro, mid/overview to sessions so the various target groups can be addresssed.

Is it time to get rid of the PGP BOF yet?

Just wanted more BOF'S

Just what I wanted to see.  I'm not currently focused on security, but everyone needs to be aware of it.  Our security guys should have been there.

Less presention, more audience interaction

More topics- peering, mulitcast, routing, BGP, etc.

Need more BoFs.  What happened to the peering BoF?    Please don't drop the security BoF, even though we have had it a few NANOGs in a row.

No Peering BOF?

sorry didnt go, seemed to be redundant with tutorial

The BOF had a lively and useful discussion of current security issues and mitigation techniques.  This level of interaction was very useful

the keysinging was good, do more to promote? need key people to participate

The whole panel provided excellent inputs and thought provocing insights.

There should be more specific measures to be discussed to solve the security issues

There used to be 2 simultaneous BOF's. WHy not this time? Not all of us so security/peering/etc.

useless

would have been nice to have a peering bof..

 

 

this your first time attending NANOG?

(114) Yes (86) No

 

What do you think about the balance of research-oriented talks versus operations-oriented talks on the NANOG agenda?

  (30) There's too much research, I want more operations.
(161) I think the current mix of talks is okay
    (8) There's too much operations, I want more research

 

What worked well and what should be improved for the next NANOG?

1st day wireless was almost useless for a good part of the day.

a few parallel tracks could be created for a 1/2 day.  Security, core routing, spam, ipv6, wifi, etc. could be parallel topics.

A less expensive city and hotel would be much better.

A lot of operation issues, that of course are relevant and core for NANOG  But it would be important to know where we all are in applying all this good stuff.   So online "talk" would be interesting. ie how many have implemented all of the good "doctrines or are planning to do so

Again, the 2-1/2 hour break for dinner the night of the tutorials was much too long.  1-1/2 hours would have been plenty.    The ATDN presentation on their migration from multi-area OSPF to single level IS-IS was informative

all was good

As i said before it should have been on a higher level.  This is my first ime so maybe my appreciation is not correct and the other meetings have been more advanced.

Attendance up; mood of attendees more positive.  Sessions I could attend were good - appreciated clear markers in the talks on "this is not new, it's review" and "this is new stuff".  (Was limited in what I could attend, but that's a good thing - too much hallway conversation ...)

Attendee list could list ASN'S they represent.

Basically good

Beer and geer network conntectivity was a disaster.  Didn't have a link until the last minute and, when we did, it was insufficient bandwidth.  Made demos nearly impossible, which is why people go to B&G.

Conference overall is great.  Good mix of speakers. Best is the chance to meet other operators.

Don't put a critical presentation like Quest's at the end-some people have planes to catch...

everything was great...

Everything worked well except, of course,

Generally the format is good. Perhaps a voluntary photo page for participant reconition would be useful

Good amount of attention paid to security

Good venue, smoking permitted on the floor below. Good having it in a big wonderful city, where the choices of restaurants are plentiful.

Handing out Wireless NICs worked well after the problelms of infected machines were addressed.  Hanling of the infected machines and their owners could have been handled more professionally.  I was not one of the offenders! Verisign attacks should have been mitigated.  This questioning got a little out of control.

Hello!  I did not get to fill out the feedback form.  I wanted to say that the event was great.  I look forward to the next one!    The only critisism I have is the wireless connections you provided.  From what I understand, because of the way it was set up, people could hack the system and cause users to be knocked off and then be given an unregistered IP address from a phantom DHCP server.  I lost a lot of time rebooting and trying to resolve the problem.  I would hope that you will have this resolved for the next NANOG meeting.    Part of the reason I can manage to go to these types of events is because I can try to get some of my normal work done while at the conference, but if this is not resolved by NANOG 30, I may reconsider attending.

Hotel space was good - numerous chairs outside the main space to work. Tutorial rooms seemed a bit cramped -- taller rooms for elevated projection would be nice.

I liked the fact that many of the researchers used real data and did not claim to know things about the operation of networks they never operated.  Many times in the past people have gotten up and explained how we were doing things wrong, even though they have never actually logged into a router or run a network.  Please never have those people back.

I liked the insecurity panel!  Maybe combine the tools research into one session to save time.

I really like the downtown Chicago location and the security topics.

I think it all worked well ... room layout (and power) was great, topics were informative and relevant, and the food was good too :-).      I found all the tutorial topics interesting.  This may be hard to do, but it might be nice if the presentators could each give more than one presentation on Sunday, so attendees would have more opportunities to attend the tutorials that are of interest to them.

I thought that the breakfast food was particularly excellent.  If I could add one thing it would have been whole-wheat bagels but really, it was great.    See above for comments on ethical lapses on the part of the organizers and presenters.      Several of the beer-and-gear showings were pretty pathetic.  It's really the vendor's responsibiity and not the program organizers', but still, if folks are going to have a booth they ought to at least bother to display a little self-respect and power up their gear!

I thought the best parts were the tie-in's to recent issues on the list, i.e. anycast, sitefinder.

I would only recommend that results presented pertaining to data collection and analysis be verified before presentation.  Having someone say "I don't know if this data is an anomoly due to a bug in my software" makes the entire presentation unbelievable.

It was all good. Apart from the wireless on Monday morning!

it would be nice if the program committee would try to think of a few things to help new NANOGers.  i noticed a number of new folks this year and they were often wandering helplessly.  i saw the newbie web page that tried to orient folks, but there are just so many people who come here meeting after meeting and know each other whereas the new folks find it very difficult to break in and be part of the existing cliques.  

Keep it the same

Liked the Filsfils IP Convergence and the Shaw GBIC talks.     The AT&T Rougan research presentation topic was extremely interesting but too short and not hugely useful. 

Location was excellent

Location was good

Longer presentation times for those that would like it.

make it adjourn before 2pm

meeting room was packed too tightly  wireless was flaky and slow  location was great  beer and gear was great

Moderators were excellent in keeping us on time

more comfortable wireless LAN use  SSID:ThisNetworkSucks is good :-)  

More real world expamples that go into greater detail.  Maybe embarrassing to some,but a great opportunity to learn  Overall, the meeting is run fairly well and I did enjoy the open discussions

More routing, less security (or, better security)

More technically rich discussions/topics/etc.

More Vijay Gill, Avi Freedman,Robert Seastrom and John Payne should also present.

Need a more stable wireless LAN.  Most folks are trying to keep business running, but continual failures detract and make you more frustrated.

please find sponsors for a catered lunch and shorten the lunch period  ---  have a test network infrastructure that you have to prove your laptop is clean on before you are let on the production network

Please see speaker note above.

Randy Bush was funny he should be funnier next NANOG

Realvideo streaming was lacking for off-site attendees.

Research is great especially when it speaks direct to ops folks and engages them like the RoLex talk. Filsfils was OK but a bit too aloof and talking at us. We do need to be more aware of research but we would like to understand how we can make use of the research right away.

room layout was awkward  Worked-blocking/choregraphy of similar tipics was great  The hotel was great -having floors 4,5,6,7, to ourselves was great

room layout was great - the number of tables and power points was great.  more filtering at the wireless access points for compromised or otherwise misbehaving hosts would be much appreciated to make the wireless more useful for those of use that would like to use it. :-)

see above

Seems informal talks are very beneficial.   I wish there were moderated informal sessions for ISP"s to discuss topics.  Loved the conference being located in the midwest instead of on the coasts.

Some details on the slides, so was the info on the bottom of the slides

suggestions

support 802.11g/b/a wireless

Susan Harris should be retired, as she is too old and uppity to fulfill her obligations as a conference host.

Talks were good.  Wireless was problematic at first.  Kudos to those that tracked down the problem hosts. Power was a problem as well - no power on the right side at first.  And no power in the side rooms (for tutorials, the bof, beer & gear).

The "Surprise" was great. Do that more with more focus on best practices

The alternate presentation method for Rob's router security talk was a big plus.  The Big Surprise was the best part of this meeting.  The results were ridiculous for this crowd.  Hopefully a big eye-opener.

the audio engineer at the mixing board should be improved.  I realize that it was hotel staff but maybe there should be a NANOG staffer there also. 

The discussions on products being developed wre somewhat distant from the ops/engineering side of the house.  How can we associate what they're saying to what we do?

The presentations were quite good and on-topic this time.  The wireless network functioned very poorly and took far too long before it became remotely usable.  It's always been much better at previous meetings.  If it doesn't get fixed until Tuesday, that's unacceptable--the meeting is more than half over by then.

The program worked very well and was informative. I liked the offerings of optional social events to experience the city somewhat more. This is a nice feature value-added and offers great networking with others. As I already noted I found the actions of the nanog29 network operaters very questionable and would suggest they not be repeated.

the router content really helps me in my day to day job and makes it easy to pay attention. Much better.

The rows of tables are too long making it difficult for people in the middle of the row to contribute to discussions. More aisles.

The wireless LAN and wireless MAN were sub-par.  Please try to offer 802.11a, 802.11g, WEP, dynamic WEP, and/or WPA / WPA2 (802.11i) at the next conference (at least one of the above would be nice).

The wireless links were great.  It made it alot nicer to attend the conf. Being able to look at info while at the sessions was GREAT!!!!

The wireless needs to work.  Kick people out with infected machines/broken wireless configs

There were several presentations (the one on RANCID, Matt Roughan, Christian Estan, Nick Feamster, and one or two more) that were identical to presentations given by the same authors less than 1 month ago.   <P>  I think presentations at NANOG should be unique and not a copy of what was presented elsewhere. One way to accomplish this is not to accept talks that were presented recently elsewhere, or require that a there is significant new work added.

things seem quite good.  

Thought it was good.

Topic areas were well covered.  If there is a greater representation of research over operational I think a mix of topics to provide breaks i the information given so as to limit information overload

Topics seem to get better every nanog.

Tutorials content was good, BoF bad

Venue was good (nice central bar for sociability and meeting up!) but hotel room block filled up quite rapidly. This was not necessarily a bad thing in Downtown Chicago, as hotel rooms were readily available elsewhere, and at much better rates (and often better quality!).

wifi? What didn't work well for $200, alex.    Moving see above.

Wireless network did not work very well. While the reasons were obvious, reliable network connectivity is a must. IPSEC tunnels were difficult to maintain at times. 

 

Do you have suggestions for future NANOG presentations? (Topics and/or speakers)

A BOF on wireless security would be good.  It should be an interactive session that allows"auditing" of participants ordinary practices.

A tutorial on Forensics

approaches to managing distinct classes of service from edge (i.e., the customer-facing product) through the core    impact of voice over ip on public networks - class of service, quality, SIP/session management, directory infrastructure - L3 and others do this    multi-provider 2547bis VPNs - any thoughts on challenges here, and are any providers working through them    

blaster, sobig.... to filter or not to filter

Changing nature of peering policies.are the tools being used to allow differential peering and partial transition on same link.

Consensus on internet(?) parameters and metrics

Focu NSP,sec,BOF on edge filtering

General status on IEEE 802 wg status

Get Hott Karl from USB services, Atlanta- to talk on his downtime solutions for BGP drops

Get the tools makers to get together and do a forum about how they are integrating their tools to avoid overlap and make it easier for us to deploy and to reuse parts of tools, i.e. config parser.

Hard to see how anything could compare to KC Clabby's " the answer lies in measurement form Miami

Have to give a technical talk

How to carry  carrier-grade voice over IP in a multi service network. case studies based on actual or planned solutions

How to deal with consumer infected machines to make ISP networks more useable or immune.  Not just oversize everything.

I am very interested in workable, scaleable IPSec or similar security implementations. e.g. how to do PKI without killing yourself or something better...

I know the organizers really do their best to have the presentoations from the various talks online,ASAP. Unfortunately, this is not the case.  I think this would allow attendees a chance to review the data and attend the NANOG with some awareness based on the research presented.

I'm personally curious about hearing more about network management in an operational context. I'm not sure how many ISPs would be comfortable talking about this, though.

Interconnection with voice, cos, etc.

IP Traffic Engineering, just general methodology, principles and techniques, beyond MPLS-specific techniques

Jeff Doyle for continuation of IPv6 from NANOG28 would be very interesting.  

Judging by the "surprise" talk on Tuesday, perhaps a tutorial on secure wireless computing might be in order.. with examples for setting up ssh tunnels around web traffic, securing a desktop OS, etc.

Let Rob Thomas present more!  Many breaks- seem to be too many. 

Maybe a tutorial "tools survey"

Maybe sessions of the same topic in the same slot.

More Best Practices talks

More on spam fighting.  Perhaps a pannel of anti-spammers &/or companies doing anti-spam work

More operational talks about current practices, experiences.

More ops stuff

More Rob Thomas, other than that is was great!

More tutorials on MPLS, BGP, and Security

MPLS implementations  

MPLS VPN : advantage and disadvantage. How to cut off worm virus permanently

No immediate thoughts.  Where would I send suggestions as they occur to me going forwards?

Nope, nicely don overall.

Perhaps a mix of more how to's rather than what we did..

Please consider presentations related to:  - Metro Ethernet deployment, focus is currently in Europe/Asia but would be nice to have some feedback  - NANOG wireless setup. It would be nice if some of the previous hosters shared their experience setting up and running the wireless. It appears monday morning always has issues of some sort related to wireless and it would be nice to have people discussing this and sharing the feedback.  

Potential for small group panels with more experienced operators to provide tutorials to group of 20 or less people on mid-high level technical topics. 

provide a link page of network tools on NANOG website

Randy Bush should present again. More implementation experience presentations

Real world traffic engineering guidline  additional reesentations on security-would like to see a consultant from a "Hacker" company to speak.  Follow-up on tools that were discussed in this session

Regulatory issues that affect ISP's such as CALEA and the Freedom Act.

Research is key, but we need something that we can bring home.

see above

smart, secure, happy bgp routing with fast convergence and tools to monitor and measure all of the above. ;>    more active conference security stuff... more honeypot stuff especially... that was great =]

something on how to run things when you don't have a bottomless pit for a budget (ebay eq purchases, service contract issues, how to deploy nms on less than the latest hardware etc). not sure how interesting this would be to others, may want to ping the list.

Sometimes I wonder if NANOG is just a soapbox for Randy Bush.

Testing methodologies would be useful(performance, convergence, scalability)

The network sniffing should be done everytime, since it is very pertinent to the target audience.  Make people aware and teach them to be accountable.  =]

The rise of the MSO's  The balance of transit vs. peering traffic-impact on the internet  Equipment los battle- what should customers consider"standard"

Transparent proxy implementation beyond policy based routing and WCCP

Two things I'd really like to see:    - microsoft rep(s) defending (or admitting to) their horrible security record and telling us what steps they'll take to clean up the mess and when.    - a router architecture panel discussion with a moderator and a rep from cisco, juniper, procket, foundy, avici, etc.  needs a strong moderator and should involve questions submitted on the mailing list and allow questions from the audience

update on BGP research, IETF work, Ina Minei security case study/case studies-Merike Kaeo

wide area storage networks

worm containment, filtering, best practices, regulating systems

 

If your organization would be interested in hosting a future NANOG meeting, please provide your name and the name of the person we should contact, or feel free to suggest other organizations that would be good hosts for future meetings.

Riverstone Networks ?????

Seattle! SIX and/or Microsoft

Steve Lindford, spamhaus  Brightmail, etc.

 

^ Back to Top