^ Top

NANOG 30 Survey Results

Miami, Florida

Attendee Survey Results

Please take a moment to fill out our evaluation form.  
Your comments and suggestions will help us plan future meetings. Thank you!

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one) 
Very useful (54)   Useful (116)   No opinion (12)   Not very useful (5)   Useless (0) 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better (25)   About the same (63)  Worse (22)  N/A (67)

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

The choice of topics was: 
Well Chosen (40) 1 (94) 2 (40) 3 (13) 4 (2) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (38) 1 (88) 2 (50) 3 (9) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were: 
Excellent (39) 1 (100) 2 (43) 3 (5) 4(2) 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. 

Should have compressed the historical retrospective *significantly* to make way for more operational content.

1st day I think more technical thing will be good

applicability of presentations varied, but could be due to audience diversity. I appreciated MS. Sidebottom's non-technical insight into recent legislation;

Best one that I have ever attended.

Better tha non-stop DDos. Significant overlap i the historical perspective talks but that may have bee inevitable.

Better tha usual speakers for this one.

BGP/MPLS ssecond presentatio  o Sunday  Very Good

Could have picked a better hotel  Locatio wasn't great-many people had problems with rooms, cleanliness, availablity etc.

Enough with the MPLS talks, do they need to dominate YEAR AFTER YEAR?

Eric's "trap/clean" talk.

For a newcomer at NANOG, but having bee with a ISP for over 8 yrs, the retrospective was informative and amusing. But were they useful ?

generally, o the first day I was surprised by the prevalence of comments that were heghly critica o the personal level about characters not eve present to counter argument.  The superiority complex (" we ca out tech themfools") was a tad boring and childish. This view into the pettiness of great minds was at best disappointing

good i general maybe too much history and retro we spent valuable time hearing these topics

good mix of topics Scott B talks are always excellent:informative and funny Very interesting presentations o BGP:Liste & Whisper & Making sense of BGP

Harvard was best Monday "Ole Skool" ws entertaining  

history was interesting, but got tedious speakers i general were very good at presenting

Homeland Security talk was content-free.  Also Tuesday a.m. Bradner talk.

Hot potatoes presentatio excellent Anniversy topic average

I did like the tuesday, the monday was to much history. I prefer the presentatio about the real practical stuff. The research stuff is sometimes hard to follow, for me, but certainly interesting. 

I don't mind paying more for NANOG if it means having more time for presentors to present!

I especially liked the retro sessions. Best talks: Scott Bradner, Phil Karn. Best research Topic: Synchronising Software Clocks o the Internet 

I find research topics somewhat less tha useful, sometimes it appears the only point of the research is to continue the pursuit of their degree.

I liked the "retro" focus for NANOG 30!!  Scott Bradner was great!

I lilke the university network presentations the retrospective was too long o Monday

I little too much focus o "back i the old days."

I loved the retrospective aspect of this NANOG... being a "old-timer" myself. ;-)

I really enjoyed the Internet History presentations

I really enjoyed the retrospective, although Sue Hares detailed slides didn't really guide me all that well.  I was expecting more presentations o problems providers were facing tha academic presentations, but both are useful.

I really enjoyed the short history of the internet 

I recognize this was a anniversary date, however, I found day one (Monday) a bit slow.  Almost needless info that probably should have bee offered as a extra day prior to Sunday tutors.

I think history was over-emphesised.  History is both entertaining and useful, but we took about 1/4 of the program for it.

I think there was too many 'History of' sessions.

I thought the historical / look at the past 10 years was interesting, but it would have bee better mixed into various other presentations. It made it hard to focus o talk after talk about essentially similar topics

I understand that this is the 10th anniversary, but I think the retrospective speakers were a bit overkill.  

I would have prefered that the retrospective be a Tuesday

It is great to have such opinionated people and hear where they think the industry is going some of the students need work before they present their research

It may sound absurd, but I feel that it would tremendously improve the quality of the NANOG meeting if the speakers were  give training o how to speak, how to present.  You would think that at this point i a persons career that  they would have already done this, but obvisouly not. Spefic examples were Tina o the Sunday tutorial -- she  was dancing all around the podium, out of range of the  microphone so it was impossible to hear the majority of  her presentation... and she tried to go through it far too  quickly  I have participated i several presentations to other professional organizations that are now providing speaker tips and reviewing the  slides 2 - 3 months i advance... forcing the speaker to prepare and  reivew early  The other issue seemed to be i incongruence betwee the  titles and the content.  Great title -- stopping worms o a  college campus -- turned out to be a couple of slides about  creating cooperatio i a political environment.  Great speaker,  wrong audience.  

It was enjoyable to see time dedicated to history and how we got here

It will be good to have more technical talks.  But breadth of topics is very good.

Life o 4U network- Eric Cauthier-good anallysis of DDos vs SCO-good Paul Francis views  vs Phil Karn's views- very interesting to see tensions re: NAT

Lots of slides had illegible diagrams and text i tiny point sizes.  While I know it's o their fault, some of the non-native English speakers are prone to gabble and waffle during their presentations, making it very hard to understand them clearly. Maybe they need some guidelines about speaking?

Many speakers had fonts there were too small. Dual-corner projectio screens drew attentio away from the speakers i the center, who likewise were unable to effictvely gesture or be otherwise engaging.  Consider o central larger projectio scree i the future.

Many times the interesting stuff was killed to stay o schedule.  The schedule is less important

Monday was too long 15 hours is too mich split it up into more days

Monday was too much history of the internet

MPLS discussio were very good but assumed certai scenerios should have had more generic focus with respect to  hpolyw (?)

Not enough time for speakers to talk...some talks felt hurried.

NSP-SEC BOF

Overall very good.  But we had many "where have we been" discussions where only one or two would have bee adequate.  The show was still very good, but just it lacking i technical content.

Paul Francis talk (feb9) was BORING.  he is repeating the same "I love NAT" song like broke record.

Please include more technical presentations and "Best Practice" presentations

Please, ghod, no more MPLS.  BGP stuff was interesting and good.  Liked the Exchange Point stuff.

program was pretty solid

Programs were good, but new topics need to be solicited.  It was striking to me that NANOG has had some of the same topics for soo long.  Also more opposing presentations may stir more debate among issues.... 

Really enjoyed the history lesson.  Not think we need all the mpls. I have zero interest i mpls.

S Bradner's 2nd presentatio was somewhat interesting, but it ws really just a "here's what I do now" Not sure how relevant that was More retro tallks would have bee good Peering debate was a good idea

Scott B and Dino F were excellent

Scott B. "A short history of the internet" was wonderful

Scott Bradner's A Short History of the Internet was excellent. 

Should build a cd image of Mondays presentations so I ca hand it to my staff as homework. Best set of "this is why it is" presentatio I've seen. 

snacks disappeared too quick

Some of the presentations seemd a bit much ( particularyly towards the end of the day) It time is a constraint it might have bee best to cut dow topics and/or presentations ranterh tha rush throught them.

Some of the talks were excellent , some not so

some speakers were good one was terrified and it showed too much self-centered talk: why tech problems were involved till 6:20 o Monday- maybe this is for the 10th anniversary

speakers should try to improve quality /resolutions of their slides. Sometimes they were not online and hard to see from the auditorium

the  relevance of topics o tuesday was well thought out

The debate during the peering bof was excellent.  I would suggest redoing it, however doing it panel vs. panel i the general session.

The DHS lawyer's talk could have bee organized better for ISPs by presenting:  - Data collectio (types) that may become required - Which data that providers may collect may be subpeona-able or may have archival requirements  And the reference individial laws, rather tha working it from the other direction.

The first day's programs concentrated mostly o the evolutions of the internet, its history etc. which was not very useful.

the historical content was interesting but devoid of technical detail.  the technical talks were full of technical content but poorly delivered.

The mainstay of Monday, the 10 years of NANOG, history of the Internet, etc, until the research talks was a abuse of time.  Sorry, I know it's great and all, but so much self-congratulatio and so many "funny" annecdotes is not interesting, really.  Scott Bradners talk about his new job o Tuesday morning was similarly a abuse of time.  Most of the non-10 year talks have bee good.  More time for the talks research talks o Monday afternoo would have bee good.

The microphones suck The hotel quality and locatio was poor

The nostalgic NANOG history review was intersting, but not too informative.  More informatio from the Department of Homeland Defense would be VERY interesting.

The presentations from the UCB and UC were very good

the retro talk was good

There never seems to be enough time -- I don't know whether less topics, or more NANOG is required...!

This is without a doubt the worst hotel that NANOG has ever bee hosted at.

thought some of the research topics were a little too deep " i the weeds"

too much focus o retro take Scott's presentatio o Tuesday How does a talk o Scott's job help me as a network researcher(operator) engineer/vendor? Waste of Scott's time and ours

too much history more real life engineerint deployments/solutions enjoyed Scott Bradner

Too much history o Monday

Too much nostalgia. 45 minutes of history would have bee interesting, but the prolonged historical tour was done at the expense of other topics.

too much retro.  I know its bee 10 years and thats great but really it should have bee 1 or two talks not all day long.

Too much time spent o history, while the research forum talks would have deserved much more time

too much time spent o the retrospectives

Unfortunately I found a number of the retro-talks to be lacking i insight and detail - great speakers with nothing interesting to hear from them.  It was nice to hear some of their abbreviated stories, but they seemed to be missing details, so only a "old-hand" would gai some value from these talks. So day 1 AM was kinda dissappointing. Most of the rest of the general sessio talks were quite good and had alot of interesting detail and things to lear and implement.

Very BGP heavy Wide variey of technical sessions would have bee more useful More focus o emerging technologies ( i e Wireless)

While history was interesting at first it got to be too much.  It shold have bee limited to half a day max

How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (41) 1 (57) 2 (25) 3 (14) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (35) 1 (62) 2 (29) 3 (6) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (42) 1 (60) 2 (20) 3 (8) 4 (3) 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 bit more "depth" about peering and technical issues would have bee nice...

a little bit too much MPLS I'd like to see IPv6

Always like a good tutorial by Joe from Juniper.  He always does a excellent job.

Balus and Loomis were excellent, but went a little fast for me.  Soricelli had some interesting material, but turned me off by asking poorly-worded questions and insulting the participants whe they didn't answer right away. 

Blackhole tutorial excellent BGP/MpLS  Layer 3...very good real demo's  vs presentations would be nice

Chris Morrow's presentatio o customer triggered blackhole filtering was very good.  More detail o implementatio could have bee provided however.

did not attend

didn't attend

didn't attend

Didn't attend them. None were particularly relevant to my operations.

enough MPLS already

fairly good overall

fast reroute

FRR talk should include stuff like time flow diagrams to provide a framework VO L2 talk was excellent, but need more details

I a  ? from Juniper Sunday tutorial o Laxer 3 MPLS was  terrific really clear and complete made it comprehensible ( complex topic)

I did not attend tutorials

I have zero interest i mpls. Like the idea of advanced tutorials.

I only attended the MPLS FRR session, would definatly like to see the advanced sessions continue to be offered.

Ina Minie's tutorial is very clear and informative

ina's mpls talks are always excellent.

Ina's talk was good, but after starting out saying it was going to be a vendor independent talk, she was promoting Juniper's products which was i bad taste.

Ina's was great Tim Battles was quite spaced he just read his slides not useful

Jow Soricelli's comments/presentatio was exceptional The Blackhole sessio was very good, also-all 3 presentors

L2VPN L3VPN

More introductory tutorials: I do not assume that everyone at NANOG is a expert.  Network Engineers are a dime a doze (obvious from Dot-NET boom), will always have newbie engineers (like me).

MPLS.  Why do you spend so much time o MPLS.  Out of the 500 people here, perhaps 30 of them use MPLS.  Do you really think most people here care about MPLS?  The BGP tutorial would have bee good, but I missed it. :(  I did want to go, though.  Suggestion: If you do MPLS again, make it 9 AM o Sunday, and do the useful topics i the late afternoon.

n/a

Peering debate ok but agai meeting was killed, follow up survey- post contact app. please

Perhaps more rudimentary tutorials should be presented ie BGP primer, MPLS for beginners.

real-tilme blackhole discussio was very good great presenters ISP security  POF was also very good NSP-SEC mailing list taht came out of it is potentially somethilng that will help out a lot of mitagating attacks

the MPLS based L2 UPNS was a very good overview of the technoloy

The MPLS/Layer 3 VP talk by Ina Minei, Juniper Networks, seemed more like a Marketing talk for Juniper and Cisco-bashing. This is unethical coming from a Juniper and ex-Cisco employee at a vendor-independant conference like Nanog.  Alos, Juniper should stop using company logo slides at Nanog presentations.

The NAP tour was excellent Thank you Terremaru Josh was a great guide

The tutorials weren't particularly interesting MPLS.  The talks were good, except for the self-indulgent 10-year talks.  

Tina was terrible.

To much MPLS?

too much MPLS

Too much MPLS!

Tutorials are a excellent idea  Would like to see more i the future

Way too much MPLS.  Nice to see more advanced topics,  though.  

we may split the sessions by topics and hence simultaneous sessions so that people may choose the thracks that intrest them

 

How did you like the BOFs?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (59) 1 (48) 2 (17) 3 (1) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (47) 1 (49) 2 (25) 3 (5) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (55) 1  (48) 2 (20) 3 (2) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory 

Please give us your comments on the BOF.  

 They ru too late.

Adding a bit of spacing betwee the BOF sessions could have bee useful. The security BOF ra long, as did the peering BOF and of course I wanted to the attend the key signing.

Again, the peering BOF debate was excellent.

Bill Norto should have posted his slides o peering contacts. They were very usefull and should be o the NANOG web page.

ca only rate one bof as there were too many parallel

did not attend

did not attend

Did not attend

Didn't attend

excellent Peering BOF

good to have a peering BOF again

Great debate -- I really liked Bill Norton's focus and work o getting all of the peers together.

I don't think the BOF'S  are needed, should use time for presenations

I enjoyed the peering BOF very much

I find that the BOF's are i generally excellent My only complaint is that I find and always have had the core participants are very familiar almost to the point of being exclusionary to the larger audience We lose intrest as a result introductions and biographies are very important

I only followed the security BOF

I the peering BOF the debate was good, but the participants should have bee more likely

I'm not into peering...Really can't comment.  Other BOF's were ok.

ISP SEC BOF - great

ISP Security BOF- good mix of presentations- good level of info

Keep having peering BOFs.  The peering debate was great. 

Most of the BOFs seemed to overrun.

need a bigger room for beer and gear

NSP sectio was very good

NSP-SEC and peering  BOFs are always good

Only did peering tutorial

Peering BOF earlier i the evening please

Peering BOF format worked very well, enjoyed the great debate. Have Avi and Vijay switch sides next NANOG.

Peering BOF very useful Would like to see a tools BOF again

Peering BOF very usefull ( first time attendance)

peering BOF was very useful

Peering BOF worked well

Peering BOF: Interesting debate. I think it was mostly a rehash of things that we had heard or know already. The overall thing went too long. So if either one or another should be done (personals vs all the different talks and the debate). I think the personals and meeting peering people is one of the mai reasons I come to Nanog.

Peering BOGF was great.  Wish we had one at every NANOG.

please hold peering BOF more often

presentations fine for bofs, although for the security bof, there were more presentations tha discussion.

Security BOF was excellent

security BOF was excellent

Security BOF was good

Security BOF was great.  It's nice to have BOFs starting at different times, so one ca sample several, eve if there isn't time for them all.

Security ok Peering also ok

Seemed like there was a lot of misinformatio o the slides for teh peering personals

Should do the peering BOF at all NANOGS, and earlier i the day.  Security BOF was excellent.

The BOFs are always productive

The Equiniz/Peering BOF was too slanted towards Equinix

The great debate hosted by Bill Norto was of high quality( thanks to the volunteers) and highly entertaining at the same time. Good times

The peering BOF continues to be a excellent resource.  The debate was entertaining

The peering BOF tried something different with a debate, and although I am sure Bill helped them prepare, unlike the normal exciting energy, this was putting people to sleep.  I rather enjoy, and expect change, however, if there is one thing nanog really needs it's a exciting presentation, and Bill has historically bee one of the folks who makes this conference worth while. 

The Peering BOF was very useful for meeting other peering managers, and the "great debate" was a amusing diversion.

The security BoF was excellent, please keep it going.  The peering BoF was AWESOME, much better tha before.  Part of that was because more and more people are coming, from all over the world. (Bill should stop putting up just a US map o the screne.)  Part of that was the debate.  The debate was very, very good, and nice to see some "Real" points behind those topic.  The PGP signing thing would have bee good too, but I missed it 'cause the Peering BoF went over - since teh Peering BoF was soooooo good.

The timezone difference betwee Amsterdam and Miami was having too much effect and I didn't attend any of the BOFs :-(

the two most interesting BOF's were opposite each other ( peering/ troubleshooting)

very interesting format, debate for the peering BOF (the only one I attended)

 

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

(70) Yes  (106) No

 

What location would you prefer for future NANOG meetings?

(76) East Coast
(15) Midwest
(53) West Coast

 

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

A more robust wireless LA would be great - there needs to be some better of tracking dow *who* is running ibss base-stations with the nanog ssid as well as those running base-stations with other ssid's o the same channels as the meeting wireless la - how about having attendees register their laptop's MAC address somehow? Otherwise I have no complaints.

A nicer hotel.  A bar that stays ope beyond 12:00am.  A hotel with room service that operates beyond 11:00pm.

Alternate locations Pferhaps presentations could be a deeper more conceptual work

always wireless and audio video problems

Audio/Vidio- fonts too small o screen- couldn't read from middle or rear of the room Auddio too loud i front Presentors should be encouraged or requred to use a minimu font size

better hotel better access to restaurants/activites

better wireless connectivity. Choose a hotel with decent food we ca walk to.

connectivity sucks

drop the internet history

Eve more emphasis o security issues, and network management

Everything about the actual conference was done very well; good conference room, good NANOG network, good speakers, good "extras".  But the actual locatio was not good.  Hotel internet crashed, scary neighborhood and quite expensive.  I travel o a manditory corporate credit card so being confront with situations where I can't use it is frustrating.  I prefer taxi services to get around and none of the cab companies i Miami used credit cards.  This is probably just my ow personal annoyance.  But i general I found Miami somewhat inhospitable to business travelers.

Find a hotel that doesn't want to recreate artic conditions withi the ballroom, and has lifts that don't go missing.

Find a place o Miami Beach!!!

First day must be as rich as the second I do understand that celebrating 10 years filled the agenda 

Fix the Microphones

Focus o the network-not people get the simple things right-audio, video, display It is surprising to see the EMCEE fumbling with the projector.  It can't be that hard

Food: Good.  Hotel:  Unmitigated disaster.

Get the presentations o posted at least the day before so they ca be review before the talks. I was interested i two BOFs and neither of the slides were posted.

good to have IXP panel again connectivity from NANOG's is getting worse and worse-please ca we have 802.11 a/g wireless and more reliable external connectivity hotel flaky

Good wireless coverage

Hotel locatio is awful.  You should be able to walk to at least some decent eating/shopping/entertainment venues.

Hotel sucked , city ok, Network sucked, got better BOF o metro ( ?)

hotel was pricey More packetr desig stuff Have them present before Beer and Gear

I attended my webcast and didn't have any problems getting the content!

I could not get a room @ the hotel organiztio was fine would be good to have a contact board for people leaving notes for each other, or trying to find each other

I did not understand all this telco bashing. Granted, they're not the ones that will implement new stuff and they do tend to want solid and prove solutions. However, this is what the clients want more and more. So there is one or two things that ca be learned from telcos modes of operations.

I found myself wondering about the organizatio vs other professional organizations.  Does NANOG have a educational  sub-committee?  a lobbying sub-committee? a R&D sub-committee? membership sub-committee?  Why/how were the research papers / presenters chosen?  Did NANOG fund  some of the research?    The context of the presenations were missing  i other words.  It was confusing as to why I was hearing a presentatio o MPLS over IP.  GREAT PRESENTATION... but  why?    I also wonder if there should be more parallel tracks o Monday and Tuesday, aki to  Sunday, due to the growing audience size.  The meet and greets are excellent use of time.  Way too much use of acronyms... I have bee i the ISP /network business for 8 years and was having trouble keeping up with all of the acronyms, especially since they were never  identified at the beginning of the presentation.  Should be a requirement that the presenter identify all of the acronyms at least twice o their slides.

I Tuesday's Sessions:  (1) nice to offset all the BGP discussio with some practical edge tool experience (the worm attacks, wireless talk); (2) the retrospective talks o Monday were great; and (3) more tech talks.

I would like more focus o economics -- particularly peering and transit.  I additio I would like to have some focus o the economics of streaming.

I wuld like more tutorials

Improve wireless connectivity

IPv4 network connectivity IPv6 reverse lookup lame delegation

It should be mutually beneficial for NANOG to invite more academic participation, such as giving students discounts or support for attending

It would be nice if the conference was a day longer so that there wasn't such a loaded schedule for Monday.  Picking a easy to get too city was great.

Keep bringing i speakers who do good technical talks o current technologies and problems.

Less concentratio o history, more technical talks are important

Locatio -- Good, but maybe a locatio with more attractions withi walking distance... Network -- Excellent  Oh, and stick to warm locatio if it's winter!

Microphone  trouble was irritatio  would enjoy one more day

More discussio o Next-ge BQP would be good. Also, vendor presentatio o pressio problems would be good.

More i depth tech instructional talks More real time

more operational talks the airbor contagio and life o university network talks were excellent

Move locatio around

Nanog itself worked very well.  The hotel was only average C- Internet service i room was poor ( whe available) Quality of rooms and service average Elevators!!! Air conditioning i presentatio rooms was too cold

need better network connectivity, both wireless and wired

network connectivity seemd degraded as compared to previous NANOG'S

network connectivity was pretty poor, but workable otherwise excellent organization

Organizatio was good Improvement: Need more Q & A time

Pick a better hotel

Sound system needs to be improved, espesially the floor mics. Some of the speakers rushed through there presentations, and could bearly understand what what being said...

Sponsors for food worked well.   Improvements. Not sure! I like the conference. The talks always vary topics which is good.    

The 1 1/2 hour lunch was good

The bandwidth provider has serious problems getting my vp traffic back to my network, and the hotel was a joke.  I can't honestly believe this hotel was chose as a location.    The hotel's logistics were subpar (Elevator contentio and speed, locked doors and unavailability of convenient stairwells) and accomodations were substandard; If I set the price of these rooms, I'd set them at no more tha $100 / night.  The Intercontinental was hundreds of times better.

the beamer images were poor, not enough contrast not enough brightness

the depabe and the peering BPF worked well

The hotel choice sucked--we're i the middle of nowhere

The hotel completely sucked

The hotel left much to be desired. I wuld have peferred a better place.

the hotel was truely horrible understaffed, poor elevators, no food after 11 bad beds

the LA network connectivity was bad the hotel charges for internet access

The large video screens were much too dim The noise of the conf. rooom doors closing every few seconds was distracting.   They need quieter doors Network connectivity was truly sad

The locatio of the hotel was horrible.  Nothing decent withi walking distance.   The wireless was a joke.  DNS was spotty and connectivity was slow.  

The Miami hotel sucked.  Overpriced for what it was, I'd rather pay a little more and get something much nicer.  Not withi walking distance of many interesting things -- indeed the hotel didn't eve recomend walking around at all.  Room service sucked, the rooms were just ok.  Need a nicer hotel. Should encourage more people to use wired ethernet to reduce the problems with misconfigured wireless. 

The Miami Radisso Hotel where this event took place was far, far, far below standards.  My hotel room had defective plumbing,  was infested with ants, blow out light bulbs, etc. These conditions were not unique to my room, I saw many of my colleagues rooms i similare states of disrepair.  The pool water was dirty, the elevators were slow and i disrepair, for the most part, the internet either didn't work, or barely worked i the rooms (it was worlds better i the lobby/ballroom, but still nowhere near "good").  Everyone I spoke to from the miami area asked me why a show of this caliber would be hosted at a hotel well know (formerly as the Omni) as the worst hotel i miami. Please locate it at a better hotel next year.  Better hotels that come to mind i the area are the intercontinental from previous miami nanog fame, or the westi diplomat.

The network connectivity i the mai conference was a complete joke.  For a Network Operators Group conference, it seems that there is a considerable problem operating a stable network.

The network was bad and highly under-provisioned. Need better network connectivity at Nanogs.

The place for the conference is great. Sunny Miami...should take place i more sunny places, most NetEngineers work i cold, dark dingy places. ;-)  Please extend conference extra days. Extend Tuturials for extra days.   Get AV equipment that works! Spend too much time troubleshooting equipment (makes presenters hurried).

The quality of this hotel was a bit poor, especially give the price per room.   Numerous things were missing from my room o check-in(remote control, broadband outlet, etc), but were rectified following a call to the front desk - it looked like it had bee parted out for spares! I also understand that personal items went missing from some rooms, and others were dirty, with peeling paper and signs of other poor maintenance.  The lunch buffet provided at the hotel was good, this was especially useful as there were few other eateries (other tha a couple of burger joints) nearby (a few minutes walking or cab ride) that could cope with influxes of diners.  The locatio of the hotel sometimes seemed a bit isolated. Pretty much everywhere needed a cab ride, if it was more tha a block away. If we're going to stay downtown, try and stay some place where you ca walk to most facilities without the need to cross wastelands of parking lots and freeways.

The schedule is efficient, but leaves reasonable time for breaks.  Wireless coverage was good whe connectivity worked.  

The staff here at the hotel was very good, but the building leaves something to be desires.  I would like to see a more ope process for the selectio of hotel venues.

The wireless connectio was very very slow.

The wireless transfer rates and stability definitely need improvement.

The wireless.... did not work for most of Monday

This event seems to be far less political tha IETF ( excellent)

This hotel stunk they charge per minute for local calls 

This was by far the worst hotel I've ever attended a NANOG at

to be improved: better wireless connectivity i conference area or surrounding areas Less getto hotel hotel internet access was poor or unreliable chipped lunch glasses poor restaurant overpriced

too cold i the meetng rooms thanks for the vegetaria choices 

Unfortunate choice of hotels - expensive, i a dumpy area of town, with no working high speed internet, and ru down.  The Marriott next door is the same cost for attendees, has working high speed internet,  and still has paint stuck to the walls, unlike the Radisson.  The Salt Lake City hotel wasn't that great either, and these aren't cheap...  Ca you try qualifying these a bit better?  If it's going to be a dumpy place, it should at least be less expensive.  That said, the actual NANOG program was good, though the 802.11 infrastructure really didn't work at all o Monday.  Maybe there's a better way to engineer that for folks (e.g., sticking some 802.11a i there, ?).

using dynamic dns to detect infected machines o wireless and announce names.  do netflow/other analysis of the data such that people ca be found faster that are DoS'ing the wireless network.

Vegas   This hotel blows

warm weather worked, should be 4 days not 2 1/2 everything was rushed, I don't remember a thing as presentors were rushing through presentations Please include topics that more university oriented Homeland security topic was geared towards companies.

Well- Breadth of subject covered by the agenda

Well, what did not work well. The wireless network was unsatisfactory.

Well:  - Sodas and ice available almost all day - Retrospective was nice, but shouldn't be repeated - Vendor-sponsored breaks with the vendors there  To be improved:  - Check out hotel RF receptio for major cellular networks - Many network connectivity issues - Would be good to always have no-carb snack/breakfast food, if available - Hotel was overall not very nice for a mid-priced hotel (slow elevators, awkward layout/parking, not much food nearby)

What worked: This is the first time I have see business justificatio brought up i nanog, which was a really nice change. Seem to have a better mix o the adgenda.  More stimulating turn-out, meaning for some reason, the attendants were more interesting conversation.  What didn't: This locatio was tough i that food and other entertainment was not near the hotel.  The hotel seriously overbooked and didn't block out rooms for reservatons.. some people waited until 3am for a room to become "available'.  

When you come to the conference alone (and are lacking i social skills :), it's hard to get hooked up o social activities during lunches and i the evenings. Would be nice to suggest a place where participants who are not otherwise engaged ca hook up. 

wireless @nanog is unusable.  *must* do some kind of segmentatio into different channels with different ssids or something similar.  the current situatio is untenable.

wireless connectivity was good whe traffic storms subsided - getting those take care of would be useful.  the separatio betwee tables was much better for working dow the aisles w/o disturbing and tripping over folks/bags/etc.

Wireless net problems o Monday morning were a issue Does NANOG need a wireless management sever that notes limits ( ?) and /or redirects cracked hosts to a separate server for mitigation? Maybe veriso or rocksteady or some other wireless management vendor would donate

Wireless network more broke tha usual... ~20% pkt loss  Hotel in-room Internet never did work. Hotel hosting this group should tell their ISP to make sure all the rooms are ready & working before we arrive. If the hotel is not up to the task of providing a working in-room Internet connection, another hotel must be selected.

wireless networking

wireless nics for audience cut i  and out signal wasn't strong enough spotty 802.11

Wireless overloaded -next time I'll bring ethernet cable

wireless was atrocious people need to clea their infected pc's

would like to see more bof/breakout sessions. strengthe "tracklike" threads 

 

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

- Review of data analysis tools for NSPs.  I would be happy to organize/moderate.  Probably want to do one o ope source, and one o commercial, with comparisons (i.e. adlex vs. niksun, arbor vs. ...).  Probably would want a panel or two, and a BOF for foll

BGP/MPL  were quite represented pseadomire (?) seems to be a good topic VoIP i general could be a subtopic for a entire session 

day 2 was a good mix

Disaster Recovery Techniques, Server Load Balancing, Session-Initiated-Protocol.

distributed DNS

DNS; DOS attacks Hardening systems

General comment:doors to mai meeting room were noisy and no amount of care allowd someone to close the door withut making a lot of noise. Perhaps one door culd have bee left open.

have a IETF/IAB/IRTF update is nice

How real  Networks are built MPLS and Multiservice edge Operating a Multivendor network

I am sure that the New Projects group at the RIPE NCC <[email protected]> could offer something about the various things we're working on.

I would like to hear more o operating networks... real troubles and fixes

I would like to see more o the educational side,  case studies with more CLI  Some of the best BGP folk i the world are there and  it would be so helpful for them to go over how they have fine tuned thier configs and why... 

IPSEC. QoS

IPv6 implementatio experience, esp. experience with IPv6/IPv4 hybridenets.  Are transitio mechaniissms being used? If so, how?

IPv6 peering BOF

ISP Automatio (what works what does not) 

large window integratio w/ ethernet framing.

less history, more future.. What ever happened to discussing future possibilites.. Where is switching going?  What do we _need_ from hardware i the future?  What new standards are being worked o and why?  The Growth/Shrinking of IXs.. What ever happened to v6? (I know the urgency has dropped off, but perhaps the community could pla rather tha react).  /2cents

maybe security, but I guess it belongs to other forums

Maybe we ca get some VoIP or IP telephony speakers?

more "operations" contric

More i actual mpls deployments, bgp research, etc.

more operational content tha nanog 30.  history&review is good and fu but too much time was spent o that and not enough o the operational challenges that are being faced.

More presentations from government agencies.  The presentatio from Diane Sidebottom was a great start, but should have bee longer or eve a BOF.

more time for discussion i realize that many talks generated little discussion, but i many the discussio was cut off shortly after it began

more tools talk.  people who have built systems (commercial or free) that demonstrate interesting technology and study related to running of networks.

more university networks

Multicast seems to be increasing o most networks - time to look at optimizing multicast routing. Also, real-world experience from operators who have deployed MPLS would be very interesting.

NANOG caters to the ISP community.  Some large corporations are interested i peering "natively" rather tha just "buying it"... Perhaps a NANOG "welcome wagon" or "the .coms are coming" would be illustrative... This was done i a BOF, but could it be promoted to a talk?

network optimization routing presentations were gold - keep it up operational experice w/MPLS FRR

No more MPLS.

Overall it was great

Peering policies Traffic measurement Network validatio and audit techniques 

Practical stuff.

security topics i general

separate the topics and make simultaneous sessions eliminate the historic session, wasting 1/2 hour hearing about x.25 and toke ring was not nice

Someone from the US DoD involved i making IPv6 mandatory for all vendors could make for a interesting talk.    Having a sessio o service provider VoIP offerings could be interesting too.  Folks like vonage, gobeam, at&t, l3 could provide a variety of perspectives o the challenges and successes of doing this, what qos is required, etc.  This would be more of a "outside-in" and apps perspective tha the typical NANOG "inside-out" infrastructure view and would be pretty fresh I think. 

The debate over traditional, anonymous end-to-end and filtering & ISP policy seems to harde into camps that aren't  communicating real well.  There may be no solution. It would be interesting to hear more from groups like Homeland Security & SPAM abatement who want/need ennd user or pert flow authentication.  If future of Internet requires much more info

This program is missing o big friver There are many applicatio ddridving the survivability that have a well documented economic value 

Topic title/subject needs to more closely match content For example, the "How to Kill worms and Virus" talk did not cover this at all Similary the End-to-End Spam talk only covered the End to End

topic: IP capacity planning Speaker: Jennifer Rexford

Topocs: SIP VOIP Free Love DHLP vs. static registration-DHCP authentication Sever load balancing i the network backbone

Tue-Thurs for the three days to give attendees Monday and Frid to travel

video sservices campus network designs dorm rooms and how to handle them

VoIP

Yes -- see above.  "The Economics of Streaming, Peering and Transit"

 

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.

 

About each user, the maybe tradition, anonymous ETE Internet/ca no longer meet the needs?

Max Southall PEAK Internet Oregon   [email protected]

Why not try to host at a university?

Yes we would... Probably not until fall, however.

 

 

 

^ Back to Top