^ Top

NANOG 32 Survey Results

May 2005, Seattle, Washington 

Attendee Survey Results

Thank you for taking a moment to give us your comments about the meeting! 

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one) 
Very useful (52)   Useful (143)   No opinion (7)  Not very useful (3)  Useless (0) 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better (33)   About the same (79) Worse (10) N/A (71) 

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

The choice of topics was: 
Well Chosen (49)1  (96)2  (43)3  (12)4  (1)5 Poorly Chosen 

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent  (39)1  (109)2  (48)3  (7)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent  (26)1  (122)2  (48)3  (5)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. 
AOL should host more often 

bigger font slides should help; more graphics and animation don't just fill slides with words 

Dave Siegel was excellent-timely brief Tom Pozar was excellent -great intro to the topic 

DNSSEC talk was useless. Maybe if DNSSEC is deployable some day, it'd be more interesting. 

Due to my job focus-security-some of the forums were not directly relevant, but it's ok, since this is a network operator conference. 

Especially good presentations from Appenzeller (router buffers) and the Internet Motion Sensor group.; These were clearly presented and had fresh and relevant content. 

Excellent talk on router buffers. Just enough research and technically RELEVANT material to make it enjoyable. 

Fabulous presentation by Guido Appenzeller.; This sets a high bar for research presentations. 

FCC-good BPG the movie-good DNS Anomalies- good IMS-good Inconsistent BGP Adv.-boring Link rank- interesting but too long j-root-ok RPSLng -good update 


Found that 2 of the presentations in the Monday session were excellent in terms of content and presentation, the rest were so excellent in terms of both content and presentation. 

Good program.; Wireless talks were very good and could use more regular appearances.; The research talks were great as well.; 

Great location, hotel and service, have it at this location again. 

Guido's animation and presentation was excellent 

I liked many of the talks and the fact that we did have non American speakers. I think moving forward we should really review or at least talk to the presenters that don’t speak English as a primary language.; I felt that even the Asian presentations where very good but some of the points of data and representation had been lost due to language barriers.; Also I wish that others would pay more respect to these speakers while they are speaking. There was a lot of chatter in the crowd and that bothered me. Even if you might not get all of it due to language context you should still stay seated and try to pay attention. I think sometimes we, as Americans, tend to be rude to outsiders and I felt that not from nanog itself but from some of the people in the crowd. 

I liked Tim Pozar's talk and Mark Kosters 

I really liked the Research Forum on Monday afternoon, the content was very good and the 1st speaker (Guido Appenzeller) was very efficient. 

I understand why the topics seemed mostly focused on ISPs as apposed to all network operators, however it seemed very top heavy in that direction; Very timely topics.; Good info. 

It was very disappointing that one of the most informative and best sessions given was on Sunday when most people weren't present [Options for Blackhole and Discard Routing by Joe Soricelli and Wayne Gustavus]. 

Keep the public policy and political discussions/ talks to a minimum. 

Language problems with some of the speakers, especially the guys from Far East where hard to understand, if understandable at all. 

Liked the security talks best. Security continues to be a major issue, Really liked the Mike Bailey worm talk 

Loved BPG movie 

maybe could group similar talks 

More talks of practical real life experiences, and how they mitigated and/or resolved the issue on a more permanent basis.; The DNS attack talk by the NTT folks was great. 

Most of the presentations have been solid and informative.; 

Most were knowledgeable, few were enthusiastic 

Number of useful presentations on Monday were few: Guido, John on Botnets, Tim on wireless networks. This could have been better 

Overall, of I expected to hear about topics rarely talked about or topics for which additional research is needed. I can find much more information about the topics covered on my own since the topics covered were addressed very briefly. 

Parts of the Monday program where a little weak, specifically:; Performing BGP Experiments on a Semi-Realistic Internet Environmen; Good Engineering Practice as it Applies to Unlicensed Wireless Networks; Tim Pozar, Late Night Software; 802.1X: Deployment Experiences and Obstacles to Widespread Adoption;; Extension of Multi-Service Networks 

PDF files should come out 15mins before talk. Some talks were different than the pdfs; not useful. Tim pozar talk was quite good; lots of detail. AOL spam talk was not. Botnets & optical switching were good. Vijay was good, but went too high; needed more time to get more detail. Sizing router buffers was good. bgp movie was great. Scott Marcus was good. dns anomalies was ok; speakers were a bit hard to understand. basically nearly all of the talks were good. 

Pozar's wireless talk was great.; I'd like to see more like that. Also, appenzeller's talk was fantastic; Ke zhang's talk was very unclear. 

presentation by KeZhang, UCDavis student was too superficial-no details of problems/issues with testbed, experiments done not described in any detail, interesting insights derived from experiments glossed over- could have been great talk- disappointing 

Question 2 should have more option. I found last NANOG way more useful then this one. NANOG_32 (this one) did not cover issues (both operational and research) in detail. Probably increasing time for some presentation would be useful. Also it would be useful to have more focus on some security issues. 

Several presentation slide sets inconsistent with downloadable version.  The Tuesday agenda seemed a bit heavy on BGP and DNS.  I found the "Evolving the Core: Deployment Challenges and the Internet" presentation interesting, as it touched upon difficulties of practice adoption, business case, etc.  My background is from the enterprise side and management tends to be terminally clueless.  Getting best practices implemented in these environments is difficult given that pervasive networking is still relatively new for most businesses.  What is second nature to a seasoned ISP engineer may very well have never been heard of in an enterprise network.; I found the presentation touched on some of these gaps. 

Sizing Router Buffers by Guido Appenzeller was very interesting, even if perhaps some of the calculus was a bit over my head.; It was the best presentation as it was actually interesting, taught a lot, and had amazingly good visual aids. 

Some of the research topics could be a bit more operations oriented. 

sorry about this is about previous meeting (31), but I want to know about your exercise for IPv6 IPsec. I want to know that result/analysis, like how many people attend that trial at a time etc. 

Talks that involve research or require feedback, such as "link rank" and the talk about inconsistent route advertisements, should be scheduled on the first day to allow these students to talk more with operators, vendors, etc. at B+G and at breaks. 

The "router buffers" talk didn't have much research (it's a lot of stuff that's been known in the TCP community for years).; THANK YOU for the multi-service networks talk! It justifies my trip report, all by itself.; The Botnet talk, the wireless talks, and Vijay's talk were all exceptionally good. 

The only suggestion I would have is to break out the target market specific presentations to other rooms. For instance V Gill of AOL really only pertained to content providers and was not very beneficial to all attendees 

The speakers seemed very good this time.; In particular, Tim Pozar, Terry Simons/Jon Snyder, Dave Siegel, Vijay Gill and Scott Marcus were very good. 

The talk "What will stop Spam" done by Charles Stiles wasn't very good.; The presenter was preaching to the choir.; "Network Design to Support Very High-Capacity Streaming and Caching Infrastructures" done by Vijay Gill was good. He was a good speaker and kept it interesting.; The eggs were less than stellar.; This was my first trip to NANOG, and I'm glad I came. 

The talk 'Network Design to Support Very High-Capacity Streaming and Caching Infrastructures' basically told me I need proprietary hardware and software and millions of dollars.; Quite useless.  'Performing BGP Experiments on a Semi-Realistic Internet Environment' should really have been a lot better.  I don’t know if it was or not because the slides were totally incomprehensible and the talk itself was stale.  This sounds like a lot of bad but all the other talks were excellent and I appreciated them very much.  Haven't seen anything on Tuesday yet since its morning. :-) 

there seems to be more information relative to operational security than at the last meeting I attended - this is a very good thing. 

There were fewer interesting topics this time than in previous meetings. 

Think it was very well done. I understand Susan's concern of presenting all slides before hand, but it’s a bit difficult to not change your talk until the point of the talk. 

Vary security and stability focused topics, could have looked at more product-focused technologies, possible inclusion of vendor talks in format? 

Vijay Gill was my favorite speaker because of the humor he incorporated, while keeping good focus on detail and technical information.;  I would like to see the t-shirts be colored fabric instead of white, as white t-shirts don't maintain a presentable appearance as long as colored shirts.   The hotel facilities were nice, the food was better than I expected.  The events were well planned and communication concerning schedules and events was excellent.; This NANOG felt well planned and quite professional, without feeling "stuffy".   As a side note for a future event, I would like to see NANOG 42 incorporate a Douglas Adams theme.; :) 

Want to see more like the queue depth presentation. I find there is less and less operationally relevant presentations at NANOG. 

Was wondering if Susan is retiring soon? 

we need peering BOF's - chance to meet people 

Why NIT didn't share their presentation with us? 

How did you like the tutorials? 

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (43)1  (70)2  (123)3  (6)4  (1)5 Poorly Chosen 

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (27)1  (66)2  (35)3  (4)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory  

The speakers were: 
Excellent (43)1  (49)2  (26)3  (1)4  (0)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. 

ARW tutorial = good 

BGP Mulltihonning was too easy. S 

BGP Multihoming was great. The IPv6 case study was semi-helpful, but had WAY too much material for an hour and a half, and they ended up leaving out too much to be coherent. It ended up as "gee, a lot of people in Japan are deploying IPv6". I knew that. 

BGP Multihoming was too easy. So I'd like to learn about Advanced BGP Related tutorials 

BGP talk was not well focused for my particular needs, but I did learn some things nonetheless. The presenter was not good at pacing, and had too many slides. 

BGP: Multihoming Techniques by Philip Smith was excellent. We need more such basic BGP tutorials. Keep up the good work Philip! 

BPG good Blackole too introductory 

Did not attend the tutorials 

Did not attend the tutorials 

Did not attend tutorials as all of them (except ipv6) sounded too introductory.   I would have gone to the ipv6 one, but since that was the only interesting one I just took the day off to do tourist stuff. 

Did not attend tutorials. 

Did not attend, unfortunately. The one on IPv6 looks interesting and I will take a look at the slides. 

Did not make the tutorials, but the subject matter seemed well thought out and broad. 

Didn't attend all tutorials 

Few as lively as Rob Thomas. Less droning, please.   Especially after lunch. 

I attended the BGP & ISP security tool tutorials. I found that depth of detail and technical content to be pretty good. I don't know if there was a difference between the chairs used for the tutorial sessions vs. the general session, but my ass was nearly destroyed over the course of Sunday afternoon. 

I liked many of the talks and the fact that we did have non American speakers. I think moving forward we should really review or at least talk to the presenters that don’t speak English as a primary language. I felt that even the Asian presentations where very good but some of the points of data and representation had been lost due to language barriers. Also I wish that others would pay more respect to these speakers while they are speaking. There was alot of chatter in the crowd and that bothered me. Even if you might not get all of it due to language context you should still stay seated and try to pay attention. I think sometimes we, as Americans, tend to be rude to outsiders and I felt that not from nanog itself but from some of the people in the crowd. 

I missed them But the ipv6 slides were good 

I only saw the BGP multihoming techniques by Philip Smith. It was most excellent. 

I really enjoyed the blackhole routing presentation by Joe Soricelli of Juniper and Wayne of Verizon. I would like to see more "advanced" topics such as this. It's to be in a room where you can ask questions rather than trying to figure this stuff out on your own. 

I skipped the tutorial sessions because they did not seem sufficiently interesting to justify another night of hotel expenses.  For these sessions an indication of at least the rough agenda would have helped to determine whether that was a mistake. 

I would like to contact with Mr. Tim Battles. But I did not find out his e-mail address in his presentation. Is there any chance to contact with him?(I have some questions on his presentation) 

multihoming tutorial was very good and I find the tutorials one of the best features of the NANOG mtg/ 

n/a- was not able to attend any 

okay for those new to NANOG 

Phil Smith's BGP Multihoming tutorial was very good; a great level of operational detail. 


Philip was very articulate and kept the interest up for the entire presentation. Useful. 

Sorry, did not attend! :( 

Sorry, did not attend! :( 

The good speakers were really good. The bad ones...were really bad. Not so much presentation wise, but heavy accents with fast speech or monotones do not generally make a good public presenter. 

The ISP security toolkit tutorial would have worked just as well as a talk - it seemed more like a "this is what we do and recognize as CBP" and less "this is what you should do"... 

The Sunday tutorial 'Options for Blackhole and Discard Routing' was too basic.   I think the people that come to NANOG are already aware of common practices. They come to this type of higher level conference to learn something uncommon and inventive. The BGP tutorial was excellent. 

"Well done "Well done 

what tutorials 

How did you like the BOFs? 

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (41)1  (64)2  (28)3  (7)4  (0)5 Poorly Chosen 

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (30)1  (60)2  (33)3  (8)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory  

The speakers were: 
Excellent (43)1  (54)2  (30)3  (6)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory  

Please give us your comments on the BOF.  

Did not attend any BOFs. 

did not attend bofs. 

Did not attend the BOF, but the subjects seemed consistent with other NANOGS 

Did not attend them 

Did not attend. 

Did not attend. 

Good topics, poor discussuon on NSP-SEC 

I came of the security BOF learning something. So good choice. 

I expected a lot more out of the NSP-SEC BOF, I was disappointed for the first BOF I have ever been to. 

I felt that the NSPSEC BOF was more of a squabble that left the mailing list into a phsical confrontation 

I only attended NSPSEC, and it was great! 

I wish we'd had another half hour in the security BoF. We kept cutting off discussion.   The ARIN BoF was very entertaining... 

ISP Security - It wasn't quite the usual update from the Rob Thomas and Barry Greene show. A little disappointing. 

ISP Security/NSP-SEC BOF useful as always - the ARIN Policy BOF has piqued my interest in allocation policy, and I intend to attend future ARIN meetings. 

it might helpful to spend more time in BOF esepcially security BOF. 

Loved the CYMRV presentation 


nsp sec was good; too little rob t; a bit too much ietf stuff up front. pgp bof went well. 

obvious apathy about security-what will it take? 

Please keep ARIN BOF's at NANOG 

Rob from CYMRU is quite entertaining 

Security BOF very good 

security BOF very good 

Security bof was much more interesting than usual. 

Security was good 

Speaking with the author of an RFC on OPSEC was enlightening. Rob Thomas' comments on "miscreants," their tactics and motives were as sobering as they were humorous (Thank you, geeks and netgirls, he'll be here all NANOG. Please tip your admins.) 

the location and access was ideal topic selection should be better minded 

The Security BOF was pretty bad. 

too big for discussion 

too much focus on administrative topics. how to's and best practices would be a better use of this time 

Two ARIN BoFs was a bit repetivtive but not inappropiate given the nature of a joint meeting. 

Was hoping for some more best practices to come out of this. Didn't get any of that. 

While the choice of topics was good it was impossible to really have a discussion given the great number of people in the room. Perhaps the security BoF should have been broken up into subtopics such as protocol security, DDoS mitigation, etc. 

Would like to focus on practical solutions rather than some of the FUD 

Is this your first time attending NANOG? 

(74)Yes  (124)No 

Do you think that having moderators on the stage, introducing speakers, enforcing time limits if they run overtime, and managing the audience questions, is helpful, or distracting? 

Very helpful  (12)1   (52)2      About the same (66)3        (65)4    (10)5 Get them outta there! 

If you think that it's helpful to have moderators on stage, would you prefer to see them taking a more active role, doing about the same as they do now, or staying more in the background? 

Very helpful  (10)1   (11)2      About the same (16)3        (79)4    (99)5  Less Active 

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

very well organized - improve the quality of talks - have moderators play a more active role in askng tough questions, the audience for the most part seems to be asleep so may be they need a kick start (just a thought).

A/V screens badly alienged or something, right side cut off everybody's slides. wireless worked well this time

A/V, A/V,A/V So sad to see technical fols wrestle with a laptop running windows.

airconditiong too high

Beer 'n' Gear seemed a bit too crowded. On the other hand, the main meeting room had plenty of chairs at tables, unlike my previous NANOG experiences where I sometimes had only a chair with no power/table and even had to sit on the floor at times. Wireless signal faded in and out in the hotel room. I wonder if perhaps a repeater or two placed in people's rooms might easily extend good wireless coverage into the rooms. This isn't your fault, but people around me talked through many of the presentations, cell phones were ringing, and there were just generally a lot of distractions. It was sometimes hard to hear over the 3 or 4 conversations going on in my immediate area during presentations. 

better wireless and no authentication servers that failed

bring up topics(new topics) that will create greater impact on your audience

cheaper hotel/maybe more family friendly pool open all day

constant hardware problems were a sistraction-try out presentations on speaker platform ahead of time? provide known to work platform(+backup) and have speakers bring presentations on removable media(announce types)? provide platform, pull presentations from web? presumes connectivity

Definitely a very good session. I would like NANOG, however to respect personal time and start sessions on Monday with 8-5 pm. We all have busy schedules and son't like personal time taken away.

Everything seemed very nice to me. Carol, Susan and everyone from Merit did a great job as usual. Hosts did a good job, wireless and Internet connectivity was good.   I liked having the moderators.

Everything was great. Food was great, coffee was excellent it would be useful to have bottled water around all the time. Now a days folks prefer water to sodas.

facility was better, hotel staff great

First time NANOG attendee, long time (2yrs or so) list lurker. For $350 this can't be beat.

great conf - network worked much better this time (compared to miami)

Great location(Hyatt) Everything in walking distance and no need to drive. Can we not start Tutorials on weekends?

Hotel was comfortable... the decor in the rooms was nice. Close to a big airport, with flights to pretty much every corner of the globe, which is good.    Plenty of eating/drinking close by, within walking distance... no need to find drivers and pile in cars. Good attendance because local DC/NoVA people could commute to the meeting.   Slightly limted nightlife, but I suppose we were slightly spoiled for choice when we were in San Fran and Chicago!  Something odd on the network - there seemed to be some sort of ARP storm going on - like 85% of wireless network traffic was ARP. The routers did not seem to be negatively cacheing the fact that addresses were not in use, either.

Hotel was great.   Combining ARIN with NANOG is great.   

I believe the beer and gear and such events should remain at the end of the days session, rather then prior to another meeting.

I found it very helpful that the speakers' presentations were available for download.

I know that the group is very large. But I am wondering if we need to do more to have smaller group interactions. Many of the topics are applicable to the entire group, but some people are interested in more specific areas.

I like the fact that many of the MPLS guys did not come. This is a feature, not a bug.

I really enjoyed the single-track nature of the conference with everybody in one big room - it makes it easier to default to listening to all the topics even when they are not directly relevant to your own network.

I really liked the table set up for the general sessions on Monday and Tuesday.   The breaks needed to have water more readily accessible.

I think that having the multiple presenters using their own laptops caused obvious problems and frustration on their part

I think the presentations should go back to using a NANOG laptop instead of dealing with the interactions between different platforms. This wastes time and there isn't much on such a short conference.

interesting talks, excelent breakfast and events

less headbanging music

location was great

Lunchs being as long as they are is a good thing. Alot of us are local and that gives us time to catch up on a bit of work and do things we need to do while here. I think the AOL open bar was a big hit and I really enjoyed that. I would like to see more of an active role from ALL router people cisco/juniper in talks about what they see as the current state of the internet.

moderator could interact a bit more with the audience.

more emphasis on operational security (note I may be biased here by my own personal background)

More exposure of who is here to better network with the different people to companies represented 

more on routing, security, MPLS 

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

A/v A/V Not speakers, mics, projectors, but actual presenter preps 

Addressing the transitions as very large populations in Asia/Pacific come on line More for general interest-How submarine fiber optics play in the role of connecting continents 

As a hosting provider, I often have different issues from backbone NSPs.  Firewalls (in particular shared virtual firewall services), load balancers, IDS, scaling large layer 2 networks shared with many different customers (private vlans?), automated traffic balancing systems (such as netvmg), DoS/DDoS mitigation (such as Riverhead), etc... 

Bridging the cultural divide between operators of legacy voice/TDM networks and IP networks, especially where each can learn different views on VoIP.  Working with TDM/IP voice handoffs: technical and cultural hurdles. I.e., issues with equipment and issues with voice techs trying to relate to IP operations staff. How different are the languages and technical expectations of the two groups? 

broadband ethernet in WAM and neessary support issues and hardware platforms 

Chirs Morrow - real ddos issues and solutions Barry Greene - what are vendors doing to help Rodney Joffe - the effects secure dns could have 

cisco _and_ juniper talks, Current state of networking? 

clec representative dunking tank. ha! 

cover more wireless issues 

DNS SEC Tutorial IPSEC Deployment experience What's wrong with today's IPSEC implementations?-Feedback for vendors 

How network designers improve the availability of the network and what vendor availability features they find useful. Talk by defense/federal dept on their network 

I have some research on IPv6 deproyment measeuement, multi-prefix routing, new security model. I would like to give them and want to get comments from nanog people. 

I really enjoyed and learned from the wireless presentations and would like to see more of them.

I suggest having questions on this form specific to each talk, this is list each talk and asn for comments. you might get better feedback than what you get from this generic form 

I think th talks should be grouped by major category: ie segmented into : DNS related, security related, routing, etc... This will allow those with limited intereests and/or time to join or learn 

I think you should actively pursue network operators to give presentations on what they are doing. If you wait for them to come to you, it won't happen frequently... 

I would like to see more on network management (SNMP) and dealing with polling and monitoring networks on a large scale (like 500,000+ devices). 

I would like to see more research but without becoming a SIGCOMM event. 

Instant messenger protocol traffic implications 

Interesting trouble cases to demonstrate good trouble shooting techniques.  In depth presentation on WSIS org.  Overview of interesting activities in the IETF.  Cases of production use of QoS in ISP networks. 

Internet Routing Registries and their current deployments and replication among the service providers 

IPv6 rollout strategies 

Keep up the good work. The evening sessions and forum starting on Sunday does not get very well accepted by most employers. Suggest going on weekdays. 8-5 pm 

More about market or products tendency. more about study reports 

More case studies from ISPs; more info on Broadband customer issues (DSL/Cable) and fiber to the home/premises. 

More IPv6! We can still talk more about SPAM and Internet security. More BGP analysis. 

More research if possible. Operators and researchers need to get together more often.< 

More security talks 

More VoIP is always appropriate (tutorials, plenary presentations, or BoFs).  Whatever Happened To keeping in touch with the IETF at NANOG? Was David Kerrens even here? Please don't drop this on the ground (the IETF is just too flaky without operator input). Randy's not on the IESG any more - this is going to get worse, not better, unless someone is paying attention on the NANOG side. 

MPLS pseud-wires/L2VPNS\19P faster convergence-where does it stand today 

Multi cast Vace and video streaming lawful interception wirelsess broadband (802.16a, etc) 

NANOG needs to focus on network threats and things that can and should be done by ISPs in the near term. Specifically, there should be more talks about methods for dealing with spam, spoofing and DDoS. 

Network Admission Control 

Network security VoIP 

Not at this time 

P2P Application Related topics The internet application traffic distribution related topics 

peer to peer traffic patterns changing traffic patterns on the internet 

peering issues-pull topics from equinex/PA1X forums cable COS VOiP deployments forme operators presenting 

Provide laser pointers for all speakers. 

Provide laser pointers for all speakers. 

Research topics related to TCP, (not abstract ones) will surely help. Inviting universities/organization to explain their network architecture would be also useful. Discussion on security policies, taken by different universities (as by nature most of the univ. have open network) 

Routing security - as in, securing the routing system, how to do it, what is and is not it... (see russ white or alvaro retana)< 

RRd/RPSL (informative and or tutorial) 

Some speakers were very hard to understand 

Spur questions 

VOip and disserv deployments 

VOIP deployment and architecture 

We need to talk about MPLS/VPN/TE deployment and experience across the ISP's 

Would like to see more discussions for 1st timers. I came here holping to make some ideas to take back to my ISP on things to improve our network. Most of the time I felt overwhelmed and that the topics weren't relevant to me. 

You should have better enforcement at future NANOG meetings. I saw several people without the badge walking about freely. I also *confirmed* that these people had NOT registered. This trend could be very infectious.  If I see attendees who havent registered, why should I? Maybe I should save my $350 next time. 

Wireless presentations - more on how some FCC policies are killing competition - more on good and bad current ISP practices 




^ Back to Top