^ Top

NANOG 33 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 (23)   Useful (90)   No opinion (9)  Not very useful (5)  Useless (0)

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better (17)   About the same (53) Worse (18) N/A (32)

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

The choice of topics was: 
Well Chosen (16)1  (57)2  (43)3  (7)4  (0)5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent  (19)1  (61)2  (31)3  (10)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were: 
Excellent  (17)1  (65)2  (37)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. 

A little less rep. from larger ISP's during the peering bof, but overall a very well run conference.
Alia Atlas was a bit hard to follow/keep up with
all speakers should be gilven a "Speaking 101 " class
asian speakers could use some help w/language. Possibly have someoneelse present and have them available to answer questions
better than last, not as good as years gone past 3 awsome talks: IP FRR;IGP tunning MPLS; IMS-Dave Meyers
dave ward was the best talk
Excellent presentation by Martin Horneffer on IGP tuning. 
Fast re-rounting presentations were excellent, well focused and very informative. Open source IDS acceleration talk was very interesting- nice level of real -world experience.
For me, this NANOG was more uneven than previous NANOGs - some talks were the best I've seen, others were of very limited use to me.    Thank you guys for putting on Dave Meyer's IMS talk - wish it had been longer, and look forward to more updates on SIP in general and IMS in particular.
Generally the speaker should be more aware of their microphone. Often it's not loud enough.
good topics and interesting speakers. Please try to cover a broader range of topics. Half a day on IPFRR was too much givev all the other possiblities(VOiP, net security, cryptic impementation, etc.
Good varity of topics.
Hard to understand Japanese speaker  I liked the first talk by Qwest  
I personally feel that too many of the general session presentations at this nanog were all theory and not enough practical application.  While cutting-edge stuff is interesting in proportion, I think the sessons could benefit from some more how-to presentations and information that members can take advantage of now instead of  5 years from now. 
I think it would be nice if the topics covered less material and lended themselves to conversation in and out of the session.
I think the level of content presented was pretty low.  Almost to the point of considering missing this meeting.
I think the meeting should have a "chair" that sits aat the pokium. Those empty seats are awful.
I think the speakers need the ability to move around.
I want to hear operational issues occuring in ISP's and how do they try to slove the problems
I would have liked a little more detail-but realize there probably was not enough time. So in practical terms I think it was good
I would like to see a few more choices, along the lines of Tracks, such as security, etc.  I am coming from the enterprise perspective
I would like to see more time alloted for the sessions. Several presentations would have been better presented if the speakers had more time to develop a better preseentation. For example, more visual presentations and time for interaction between guests. 
I would like to see some case studies on trouble shooting difficult or complex problems.    How 'bout experiences with International carriers.
I'd like to see a wider difference of presentations
IX panel was good. Need more updates from operators like this more often.
Looking glasses-Steve Gibbard- nothing really but plea for peering IGP tuning Martin Horneffer-interesting. I need to investigate further IP Fast remote Ward/Atlas/Choudhury-glad to see this so I know how to implement it. (although I am not sure that was their intent)
monday was quite good-esp. IPFRR
MPLS panel discussion on day 1 good discussion about what carriers are doing and their challenges and approaches
My onlyproblem is that I have fairly limited needs- peering, not routing or security or... so many of the talks were interesting background, but not central to my interests. Would it be possible to have more peering oriented discussion?
Need more IX specific contant. Not to say presenters didn' present enough content, could use  even more IX participants.
Panel: Network-based Layer 2/3 VPN Deployment  Danny McPherson, Arbor, moderator  Ted Seely, Sprint  Shane Amante, Level(3)  Shankar Rao, Qwest    I think this was the best session.  The slides for this session have not been posted.
Qwest talk content good, Don needs to give more of these (and get more practice at public speaking).  Fast Reroute presentations were sleep inducing: Dave Ward presented well, the other two speakers need to be less excited about their topic, and remember that the audience needs to understand what they are talking about.  Enjoyed the VPN panel though.  Looking Glass and Bogon Route Server presentations were v useful.
really like Dave Meyers talk, this info is important
Scott Gross: Modern L2 VPNs—Implementing Network Convergence  Shane Amante: Network-based Layer 2/3 VPN Deployment  Martin Horneffer: IGP Tuning in an MPLS network  Dave Meyer's IMS  Chris Malayter's Exchange Operator Panel
Several of the talks were very basic (Looking Glass)
some of the presentations need more hand holding when preparing - if you are going to cut them short, have them shorten the talk. David Meyers was going so fast it was hard to follow, for example--
some speakers were better than others. needs to remind them to dpeak louder or put the mic closer to their mouth
Speak on current technologies more rather than future stuff
Thank you for including IX operations. This should be a panel at every nanog-not just once a year. Ditto for Peering -as a session vs BOF
The BGP and L2 VPN sessions were excellent and so was the team Cymru, Don Smith and the IDS accelerations. Did not care for the panel discussions. 
the general session was ok, im sad to see only 19 entries this year i believe the best was probably picked out of that group so the general content is probably what was most wrong.  IP-Fast-reroute was excellent, IDS Accelleration was also very good.  We need more problem - solution or even just "problem - what do you think?" type of talks.  We also need tracks :)  I think a newbie track could be well crafted, consistant as the phil smith talks and include things like bogon route servers, abuse best common practices, bgp/multihomeing, router security basics, ddos protection.
the iix panel should be structured to be more inclusive. there was plenty of time to add the four iixs that wanted to present. the limitations are artivicially imposed. there is a lot of interest in community on this.
The in-bailiwick DNS server speaker was difficult to comprehend.
The Monday pm panel around IP Fast Reroute L2/L3 VPN'd were all very good. Too much detail on the Arici talk , too complicated
the presentations by DT and Quest were particularly good
This is only my second NANOG.  I come from a small ISP (10,000 customers, mostly dialup), so we're not your typical NANOG attendee.    Regarding Sunday evening's meeting:    I think for the most part, a single track is best.  Like at least one other person echoed, I find that when there are multiple tracks, they always schedule the things I want to attend at the same time.  Plus, everyone coming together for a single track exposes everyone to things they wouldn't be exposed to in a multi-track environment.  Multiple tracks can be done, but I think it's important that it be done in a way that doesn't pit similar sessions against each other.    As was also mentioned, I would enjoy Best Current Practices sessions.  Maybe it is obvious to everyone else, but it isn't to me.  We trial and error over everything we do.  It would be nice to hear from the people who have already trial and errored so I can learn from their mistakes and design things right the first time.    Most small ISPs our size know about NANOG but don't think NANOG is for them.  And they are right.  I come because I enjoy hearing about the concepts and what is going on at the higher levels of the network.  But for the most part, the discussion here isn't appropriate for ISPs our size.    Next, I really enjoyed the fast re-route panel on Monday.  My only beefs were that Alia spoke very quickly.  For someone who is new to fast re-route, she ran through her diagrams and explanations too quickly for me to properly absorb and understand.    Last, it is important that acronyms get explains at least once.  Not for the basics of DNS, BGP, etc.  But for much less common ones, like SGRL.    Thats all.          
too many undefined acronyms. please define each the first time they are used  IX panel was useful
Too much layer-2 stuff
When looking at the Agenda, the topics to be presented, seemed to be what I was looking for. After attending the sessions, the titles for some were misleading - but all of the content was excellent. 
would be nice to have a human friendly schedule rather than run ragged with no time


How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (25)1  (38)2  (20)3  (4)4  (1)5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (22)1  (39)2  (18)3  (4)4  (4)5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (29)1  (37)2  (17)3  (2)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 tutorial is supposed to transfer information on a topic. "Build for sucess" would have been more appropriate as a BOF than a tutorial, since the presenters were more interested in asking for contributions and ideas than in delivering any content to the audience.     OAM Capabiliities - the topic is relevant, especially in the context of this nanog. Unfortunately both the choice of material and the delivery were very poor. 
Attended only MPLS OAM tutorial
BGP essentials is always good
BGP Troubleshooing- Phillip Smith
BGP troubleshooting is great!!!  
BGP troubleshooting was excellent
BGP tutolial was good for me.
BGP Was awsome need an intro to MPLS.  
BPG tutorial is always valuable for newer folks
build for success- how to use network design Barry Greene and Dave Meyer(no content) Understanding MPLS OAM-MOI2-Shaikh--no flow
Build for success-Dave Meyer/Barry Greene- Good engineering tutorial. Very high level though, sounded like people wanted details. MPLS OAM capabilities-Moizuddin/Shaikh -Great to see this tool finally implemented and good detail level
build for success-I was expecting more "real world" examples rather than a general discussion of complex vs robust MPLS-somewhat helpful as we will begin deploying this technology
case studies with more active participation from attendees would encourage collegiality and networking while deepening knowledge
complexity talk was quite good
Dave Mayer and Barry Greene had a rather interesting discussion about network design - while not what I expected, I was pleasantly suprised at the content. It is a topic that we have struggled with.
dave meyers is always great. MPLS OAM talk was very relavant. NSP BOF was good to pick out specific examples. Bill's debate was great ! Godd change of pace
Did not attend
did not attend tutorials
Did not attend.
Enjoyed the "Build for Success" tutorial about network complexity. The impact of complexity on this industry is huge, but not well understood or articulated. Maybe NANOG could host some better structured way of capturing "design rules(?) and pataterns" that would help explain these issues and educate the community. Perhaps something along the lines of a "pattern language" for net design hosted on a wifi (?)
Good stuff, an easy and an advanced tutorial is good.
I attended the BGP session given by Philip Smith.  
I attended the Meyer/Greene tutorial.They really prepared and presented it well. On the mane for operations and its network design issues
I only was at the tutorial by Berry Greene and  Dave Meyer.
I really got a lot out of Dave's Complexity tutorial, too.
I think we should have tutorials Mon and Tues nights
I was disappointed simply because there wasn' much choice and I personally was not interested in the BGP troubleshoooting session
I went to BGP troubleshooting(Philip) which I needed some background in-very clean- a little more detail than I needed, but that's  ok
I would have liked a little more detail here too. However,given time constraints, as above, the balance was probably right
Lliked Dave Meyers/Barry Greene tutorial
need to have more of these(Bogon route services) - Best practices
not attended
Philip SMith's BGP tutorial is excellent for beginners and IS appropriate for ISPs our size.    I went to Barry Greene's "Build for Success" tutorial which missed my expectations.  Way too much theory that isn't very applicable.  I thought it was going to be more of a Best Current Practices session.
plane late missed them all
same old tutorials
Some of the speakers need to take some classes on how to give presentations. They would rush through their presentation maybe because of fear of being in front of people. Some speakers should slow down and understand that we are not all on the same playing field regarding the technologies discussed. 
The BGP tutorial was excellent and I would like to see tutorials expanded to include items like MPLS traffic engineering and OSPF/MPLS troubleshooting tutorials. Also VOIP is a topic of high interest.
the complexity tutorial, david meyer and barry greene was particularly empty of content
The MPLS OAM session was paraticularyly bad. It went into too fine grained details like TLV field values, etc. without managing to convey clearly why someone would use this tool and how they would use it and what it can and cannot do for you
The tutorial on network complexity was great. More tutorials of this nature would be most helpful
Travel delay, missed it totally
unable to attend


How did you like the BOFs?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen (44)1  (36)2  (9)3  (2)4  (0)5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent (33)1  (34)2  (16)3  (6)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory 

The speakers were: 
Excellent (34)1  (42)2  (13)3  (2)4  (0)5 Unsatisfactory 

Please give us your comments on the BOF.  

BOFs were too late. Please put them earlier in the day. NSP-SEC BOF was the same old Barry Greene dog-and-pony show of who he knows. 
Did not attend.
I attended the Peering BOF, and found the peer introductions to be very useful. The debate seemed to drag on, and I am not sure if it was as useful as some of the other topics could have been.
I enjoyed the NSP SEC BOF on Monday evening
I liked the Peering BOF
I was absent from BOF. 
I was disappointed that the NSP-sec was not better prepared.  Although the speakers were interesting in their off-the-cuff remarks.
I went to peering BOF (Bill N.) which was great-really what I needed
I will send email re: this
ISP and NP-SEC BOF -Keep those forums coming
ISP Security and NSP-SEC BOF VIII was very good and interesting.  Makes me fell like I am important on a global scale.
It would be nice of the BOF could be broadcasted
More time would have been good
need somw spice or different approach to bofs.  I don' know how many times i've peered
need to post slide because you can' attend two at the same time. someone need to post a summary
NSF-SEC  FOF was excellent. Recomment that more focused session be added. THe agenda topics are good, but the vocused groups allow interested parties to dig into specific issues
NSP Bof worked because of the very specific topics. Bill Norton's format change was great, debate worked out really well
NSP SEC BOF is great. Nanog should have more BOF's and breakout sessions
NSP SEC BOF was excellent- informative and useful. Need to emphasize to attendees that info revealed at this BOF is off the record and should not be posted to public forums
nsp-sec bof seemed too free-form, topic of the day.  the content was very good, but going in you had no idea what to expect.  The peering BOF was excellent, this should be at EVERY nanog.
NSP-security BOF was good
only attended peering BOF -good
Peering BOF - Rocks!
Peering BOF had great information, great participation and great atmoshphere.
Peering BOF- the great debate spured onging debating 1 hr. after. Excellent format to exchange new points while having fun.
peering BOF very useful- need these more often and earlier in the day
Peering BoF was excellent!
peering BOF was great
peering bof was the best
Peering BOF was very inciteful. It is a great way for peering operators to meet and faciliate dialogue pertinate to the operation of peering networks
Peering BOF:     Beer was good    Debate went too long. The 'questioners' should have been controlled to 2 minutes each. The questions started to repeat themselves, etc.  
Peering BOF-Bill Norton I believ this is a great opportunity to create contacts that can help in the future in regards to troubleshooting Peer to  Peer problems
Peering BOF-I expected more once the topics were revealed but it ended up covering only one topi in an hour + agrument. Did meet some other coordinators which was helpful
Peering-Norton_ I liked the debate format before the ;lease for peering. Most of the peering coodinators didn' seem to know enough about their remarks to ever effectively recuit peers. In the future I want to see (agg) traffic whether they are pull or push and # routes announced, geographic density of majority of traffic (see sheet)
Please post the all the slides like Bill Norton's peering contacts slides.
Please start peering during the day vs night, 9pm pacific is midnight for East coasters and the middle of the night for europeans
SEC and Peering BOF's were the most effective and important part of this NANOG conference.
Security bof was good as it's a very relevant topic, the Peering bof again seems a bit weak from representation, but as religious as the discussions were it is important to many and should be kept up. 
The NSP SEC BOF major topic was vulnerability announcements. It was extremely interesting. I would like to see a more structured presentation describing mechanisms, policy, the involved parties, etc
The peering BoF debate wasn' bad, but I'm not sure that all the relevant points came out, and it seemed like too much heat was being generated for the amount of light involved.    Thank you SO much for putting on the community input BoF. Best luck with moving this forward.
The Peerng BOF was good! Liked the debate.  Have the Peering BOFs every NANOG - very operationally relevent  
To much time on Remote Peering!

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

(25)Yes  (87)No


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

all worked well..a tiny improvement would have been and extra sign pointing us down the "air wall hall" to the main meeting room
Always feel too rushed and don' end up talking with enough counter parts, IETF update was nice, again very rushed but a good reminder to get more involved. IX update was usefull, we have been looking at expansion so it did help to bring us up to speed. 
As par for the course, this meeting went well. I have come to expect these meetings to be run so well. Network connectivity was good, and the choice of venue was also good. 
Best practices-Best Practices- Best Practices!
BOFs!  More time for them, please!
community meeting was great
Don' cut off @ noon
Everything was great.  Hotel was very nice, and I think the location worked well.
get more operators to talk about their problems
Great food :)  I think the hotel was too big.  I understand it was a last miniute thing and thats cool but in the future the sponsors should find a place big enough to hold us but small in terms of keeping us all together. Chicago and San Francisco were great examples of this, very large capacity wise hotel, everything was close together, with only a couple of possible bars to meet at.  Really seemed to bring the group together more.  Chicago had a great bar/lounge out front where just about everyone hung out.  there was no way to find everyone this time, so it was more splintered.  
have one day general session, one day multiple sessions (concurrent) for different areas like security, MPLS, engineering, etc.
Have the video feed put on TV in the break room so we can see when the next speaker starts
Hotel was a bit *too* big. It was very easy to lose people, and not as easy to meet new people. A significant change from Reston where we almost took over the hotel, for example!    But, it was good to have a NANOG in somewhere with plenty of attractions, with lots of stuff to do outside of the meeting itself. However, it's a shame that the meeting schedule is quite intense. I think this could have been a more sociable meeting if people had time off in the evening to go out and enjoy the entertainment in Vegas.    Keeping some connectivity to the bar areas would be appreciated.    Good venue though, excellent facilities, plenty of exercise with the 10 mile hikes to and from the meeting area ;-).    Merit should explore the options for making NANOG a catered event, like RIPE and ARIN. Right now, people tend to either have organised meetings, or hang out within their own circles for lunch breaks. This isn' conducive to meeting different people... either in the lunch buffet line, or through sharing tables. It will also help work around the problem of loads of people returning late for the afternoon session, because it's been hard to get a quick lunch.    Also make sure that we have long enough breaks to allow hallway conversations to take place - it's good that we have 30 minute coffee breaks now!    Very easy to get to Vegas, which was great.
I definitely liked having the conference in Las Vegas.  The facilities were generally good although it would be nice if the side rooms had tables for laptops like the main room did.  
I don' think I would attend again if it's in Las Vegas. 
I enjoyed the topics but would have liked the BOF's on a separate day and not late at night.
I like the Monday and Tuesday sessions because you do not miss a topic. On Sunday there are topics I would have liked to attend, but I had to choose one over the other. 
I like the tourist city approach!  
I liked most of the general session topics, but I'm not sure why some of the best ones were rushed (the IMS session, for example) when we finished so early on Tuesday!
I loved it- it was great. I suppose somewhere to leave my bag after I had to check out (at ?) would be the only think I can think of as an improvement
If a couple more BOF's could be added to promote specialixed topics like DNS operations, peering, and IPv6..that would improve the number of choices each attendee had.
It would be good to see more short informal presentations ( 5 min. max) of problems or interesting topics that would faciliate breakout discussions/ matchmaking A clear, documented process for what speaking at nanog and submitting a talk to nanog entails, including up to presentation timeline
Las Vegas is not really a good place for NANOG.  
Location is good. Lots of hetel options, but mostly o the strip. Perhaps hosting is at a strip based hotel would be easier. More vendors at Beer n Gear, especially cryptic vendors and other IDS, IPS service providers
Merit and Community interaction was much appreciated IX panael packed Peering BOF raised interesting questions
Monday is too long a day. Can monday be split between Sunday and Monday? Provide government rates as part of the NANOG rate because they are hard to get when the Hotel is busy.
multiple tracks
NANOG meetings should be less frequent to allow more time for critical mass of attendees and topics to build up
NANOG reform was a great success, open dialogs about the operation of NANOG is fantastic for the community
Need to improve the process of soliciting imput from audience. For example, questions on BGP security or Fast Re-Route issues were to many and too complex for immediate response in real time.However, the questions are important and need imput from community. Maye questions should be posted on NANAOG web site in interactive web form  to collect responses. Presentors could send reminders to nanog mailing list soliciting responses from attendees and others on the topic questions. 
Network performance was poor.
Networking works well though wireless is a bit slow especially knowing we have OC3.   Food was good.  Hotel buffet on Sunday is very expensive. Room is good. 
nice place and not expensive hotel
non-vendor specific items (ie MPLS BGP) worked well. I felt there was too much reference to Cisco proprietary (IOS) in some of the presentations , more open standard
NSP-SEC stuff should be more separate
NSP-SEC stuff should be more separate
pay attention to comments made at the "Input from commmunity " sunday session
performance tuning & measurements mobil IP/IPv6
Please ty and improve tutorials. Panel discussions with SPs were good, have more of those. Would be good to have a more interactive discussion(like L2/VPN L3 panel) among the panelist
post all slides from bof's please
Power at each table is great. The agenda was much weaker this time around, we need more tutorials and less panel discussions.Nanog at Vegas was nice but it is too distracting and because of that I missed all the BOFs. So it might not make sense to host it at Vegas all the time. Once a year would be cool.
see earlier comments
Some formalized way to introduce people to one another.I'm not sure how short of an icebreaker. May first have people don' don' know anyone afraid. I know there were people I wanted to meet and I never did (see sheet)
some of the topic names were a bit misleading compared to what was presented
summed up Sunday night
The meeting was OK.  Understood why Las Vegas was chosen but would prefer to meet in other locations in the future  
The topics were great for network operators I believe more flexibility of topics would be an improvement
there needs to be multiple lines of events for each day, every. there are namy sessions where you might not be interested, but there is no other sessions to attend. variety! a less complex series of events simultaneous to more complex sessions
Thought the conference went very well. I was a little surprised that the conference ended on Tues. at noon. Possibly Tues afternoon could have been set aside for focused discussions
Tracks More OPS talks and speakers
truncating the second day is problematic.It leaves a lot of people with late flights and nothling to do
vegas was great location
We need to continue the discussions that started on Sunday night, including seeing concrete steps made to improve transparency & outreach in the community.
Well organized as usual.  The Monday night session was a very good idea!
What *didn't* work well was the venue. I realise it was arranged at short notice, but I hated the Rio. No socialising areas, miles to walk, full of smoke, noisy,....
Wireless in the main room seemed fairly spotty and unusable for me most of the time.  Las Vegas is a good location.
worked well- moderation and professionalism of participants and stakeholders at the sunday evening community meeting Major outcome: the community cares, the community will foster change and take action on the next steps. Special congratulations go to Betty Burke for he active listening and her openness/willingness to bring on the necessary changes the whole panel's calm and collected attitude "Disarm" a potential bomb. thanks to all.

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

1 more issues and speakers on routing security 2. some IPv6 transation or deployment topics
a smaller venue works much better for socializing
Anycast TCP deployments (we have seen all the DNS deployments we could possible need :), Massive Colocation/Webhosting Deployment's/Infrastructure (datacenters), IPV6 Peering, State of IPV6 Depoyment, General session real-world experience / examples of securing routers from break-in and ddos protection.
Bring the Peering BOF and topics into the main session - have a "great debate" there on a operations topic
Coming trends- what does CISCO/Juniper see coming?
Continue the BGP tutorial series. I would like to see more community NetFlow implementations and more on day to day network security best practices. MPLS and OSPF tutorials. VOIP opensource test tools and implementations. Also opensource tools in general that can be used to improve the network and operations.
disaster recovery-power grids best current practices-NRIC -http:/www.nric.org. Fiber to the curb-scaling residential neighborhoods
Expand on the IP fast-route--- it looks good, but wait until it gets better solidified.
Further discussions on network engineering ciriculum/best practices/methodology.
have more peering related presentations. Less research and more real world operational
How about some more presentations on network monitoring and management using open source tools?  Some basic tutorials on taking advantage of netflow and other tools for network monitoring.
I like the higher detail presos with visions into future tech and needs
I see VPLS as a problem that is not getting solved very quickly, additionally more on VoIP arch. as David Meyer had presented, I agree since it's running over IP/MPLS we should all be more aware.
I think it would be nice to have a greenie group (those new to ISP backbone) where they could find a starting point for links, labs and tools?
I think that there's an interest in OSS as well as the tech discussion on MPLS that was covered. OPS groups are always ilnterested in the tools taht assis in supporting new NCH
I will be interested in follow up on IPRR and secure BGP
I wish we could do something for employment...like a bulletin board with post-it notes, etc. for those looking for work and those hiring...    
I would like to see more security related topics. Topics could include general stratagies to secure the internet and include operators security/network defense successes and challenges and specific application/ methods to enhance security.
I would like to see the discussion Dave Meyer and Barry Greene started to continue. In working as a NASA contractor, I have had to learn the NASA Systems Engineering process, and what NASA did was take the Systems Engineering process from Spaceflight (the process to build things such as the space shuttle or Apollo rockets), and adapted it to fit our IT design - with some significant engineering. I would like to see this continue, and might even be interested in presenting some of these topics in the future (after this current project is completed)
I would like to see the next meeting have an extra day and make the BOF during the hours of 8 and 5pm. After being in the 8 - 5 of presentations, its difficult to focus in on the other sessions afterwards.  I would also like to see the screens for presentations be raised hiher so people in the back can see the slides. rather then the back of someones head in front of them. 
If a talk on swithched light path hasn' been done recently the one might he a good suggestion/update to Nan-g from this work in the R&D world (see sheet)
Is there anyway we could have some sort of discrete tasteful job fair or job bond-- how's hiring, who's look, etc. Maybe just a bulletin board where possible notes are put
LINUX QOS- traffic  control
Lots of companies are implementing MPLS in their network. It would be nice to hear about their experiences and problems.
metro ehernet last mile integration/interconnect with carriers effect of streaming UDP (eq TDMoIP) traffic on TCP/IP network
more emphasis on security services offered by the carriers, especially the DDOS challenge
More like those from Qwest. eg AOL could tell us how they run their perfect network, as per Vijay Gil's comments at the Community Session. Less of the excited techies who can' present their topic. More operational stuff, maybe dealing with worms, anti-spam, network incidents, i-commerce, security at hosting centres,.... Useful operational stuff that the big guys don' seem to want to talk about.
more operational case studies like the one from qwest and DT. More on experiences with operational tools and proceedures
more operational stuff. 
more sessions related to Voip/mmoip and next generation transports, protocols and standards. Get vendors to give hardware AND SOFTWARE demonstrations that relate to the sessions on a third possible track
More topics for content/hosting providers.  To peer or not to peer for content providers.
MPLS topics tend to be (?) focused on specific design issus. Maybe offering a tutorial on MPLS design/operators troubleshooting essentials could provide more baseline info that would help "flesh out" MPLS issues. I am thinking of something like presentations at CISCO "Networkers" but with enough time to really get to the details.
Orlando! and MPLS instro
panels should be more inclusive and there should be a more general poll for participants. on the vpn some of the more significant operaters were omitted.
Peering BCPs (peers should state up front if theyre going to honor MEDs, xmit you MEDs), Peering BCPs -- shady activities such as people altering origin codes to traffic engineer a peers network if they are low on capacity without notifying neighbors.     Hearing real-world network deployment stories regarding Video & Voice.     Less of the Barry Greene security backed presentations. Yes Team CYMRU is cool and when Rob Thomas goes up he does a good job. But do we really need to hear about how to make bigger/better botnets (jtk of nwu.edu in reston)?   Perhaps these should be kept at the nsp-sec bof, not in the general sessions. Every nanog it's always the same security topics.     More topics on multicast and could speakers be asked to not bash multicast (ie. dave ward spent less than 10 seconds talking about multicast in a joking manner). 
presentors who's 1 st language is not english, should practice their presentations better. I did not understand anything Masato was saying. I did follow the PDF of his presentation.
Research Network Presentation, IPv6
research network presentations
RIP introduction/implamentation
running presentations talking about newly implemented protocols features ( bpg, mpls, isis, ospf,ssvp,ldp) and features in developement as well.
see above- peering issues
Suggestion: equinix, switch & data
The community seems to be looking for more topics on applications - I heard people suggest peer-to-peer applications, SPAM, and VoIP.    I asked Jonathan Rosenberg about doing a Session Border Controller session at this NANOG, and he wasn' sure if (1) NANOG cared about applications, and (2) if it's too early for this topic. I think, especially based on the interest in VoIP topics here, that this would be an excellent topic for NANOG 34. It's also relevant for IMS (since CSCFs can be SBCs, as well).
The DNS table and the security response BOF were very helpful. In the future perhaps a look at the current and future DNS topics
Topic: Bridging current to future -A7M to IP. Issues and routing. Speaker: someone from Lucent Technologies and Alcatel? Contact Lisa Crewe at Luent Technologies
Traffic engineering and best practices for carriers
VoUP repuirements, regulations and how it will impact network traffic routing.
Would love to see more presentations about emerging techologies, regardless of the applications placement in the network IE VoIP applications, interactions of future carriers.

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.

Bonage or Delta Three-get a VoIP vendor and the presentations will come....
I am not 100% sure on this topic, and I am not sure what is necessary to host a NANOG. Can someone provide me with the "basics" of hosting a meeting, and then I should be able to let you know if we could or not. The only problem with potentially hosting a NANOG at a NASA center would be the non-US citizens.
I wish!
Some of the universities might be interested in hosting the nanog.  It would work well together with the internet 2 joint techs stuff.
We are just thinking about that internally and will contact you guys if I get a green light.

Merit and the NANOG Program Committee are committed to continuous improvement of the operation of NANOG meetings and the mailing list. Beyond the issues we've already asked about in this survey, do you have any specific suggestions for procedural improvements?

Good Venue NSTR Proceedure runs smoothly, more so than other conferences- good job
I support the nanog return proposals suggestions for procedural improvements
Impliment the nanog reform proposal
In these surveys, ask for stuff that didn' work. And also have a box for N/A as well as 1-5.  Programme committee needs a Chair and co-chair elected from their number who interfaces with the NANOG public. Less burden on Merit staff, more visibility for the Programme Committee. And list their names on the NANOG website so we know who they are.  I'd have no moderation on the mailing lists, but also don' subscribe people unless they can verify who they are (idea being to block freebie e-mail accounts and imposters).  Need to make the agenda more attractive for the middle and lower layer ISPs - the Tier1s will never come as attendees, I don' think. But they should be coaxed to present more, like Don's presentation.
Less frequent meetings
More visibility- the reform session was wonderful to attend.Need more social meet/greet. Such as 5-8p, in a set of suites-not in the convention area. Possible to have a room in a casion night club reserved for 3 hours for people to come and go during the evening in a social enviromnent.
No, othere than to maybe expand the scope somewhat to be a bit more expansive on topics.
Offer hotel government rates as part of the NANAOG rate
Parallel programme streams fix dates and venue longer in advance take better account of what is written on survey forms
Rotate- The More people we have involved the bigger the pool of presenters
Rotate, Rotate, Rotate The more people we have involved the bigger the pool of presenters.
So far, I thik the porgram committee's doing a good job. I thought nanog 33 had a couple of releavant topics and lots of other good operational issues raised. could maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of the program committee be chosen by the attendees? if the statistics could be presented at each meeting: # of mail list interventions, # of talks proposed, # of talks accepted...that would help more polple stay tuned to what it takes to put together a nanog
Sorry missed the town meeting
Thank you Betty and Susan for working towards community governance. I look forward to Seattle! Cheers: Ren Provo-as7132
Thanks for the great session!
the community meeting provides a great way to express the community concers regarding issues with NANOG

tracks for agenda is a wonderful idea.Suggestions#1 focus on developpping industy. best practices by sharing  op track- humbly hhorror stories/exploits for operational (24/7) matters, and seeking solutons(tools, processes.#2 future trends/technological watch and their impacts on the IP industry. future track:VOiP repuirements, upcoming RFC, new features by vendors. Peering track #3 Peering tactics, tools, traffic managemnet issues.
Tracks for agenda are a wonderful idea. 


#1 focus on developing industry 

Best practices by sharing humbly horror stories/exploits for 

Operational (24/7) matters and seeking solutions (tools, processes) 










#2 Future trends/Technological watch and their impacts or the IP 


-VOIP requirements 

-upcoming RFC 

-new features by vendors 






#3Peering tactics, tools, traffic management issues


Case Studies 

Track or 

Tutorial Topic

#4 If no one wants to share their ugly operations problems then the case could be submitted anonymously and the crowd could break out and present many solutions to fix the issue. This could be the tutorial track 



IETF Reports 



#5BBest practices for architecture, design and deployment in IP Eng. (IETF) 




#6 Best practices for security: 




Overall objectives: in depth coverage of daily issues in the operations of an ISP 

Community knowledge Sharing 

Increase networking, (personal,  ?that is 

Increase attendance, recruit speakers 


Tracks should be considered but general sessions and preliminary sessions are important to bring about subjects of greatest interest, and to not divide the community in parallel universes. 


NANOG is important and must continue to address the changing needs of the community. 

Special congratulations to Merit (a neutral organization) who takes on the colossal task of organizing the logistics of these events 3 times a year. It requires a full functional staff and your work is appreciated greatly. No public or private company will take on this Herculean activity even once a year. – a not for profit organization is the way to go. 

Thank you for your consideration




^ Back to Top