^ Top

NANOG 34 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 (20)   Useful (72)   No opinion (6)  Not very useful (5)    Useless (0) 

 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 

Better (23)   About the same (45)  Worse (6)  N/A (28)

 

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

The choice of topics was: 

Well Chosen 1 (19)  2 (53)  3 (24)  4 (4)  5 (0)

The level of detail in the presentations was: 

Excellent 1 (16)  2 (48) 3 (29)  4 (6)  5 (1)

The speakers were: 

Excellent 1 (23)  2 (51)  3 (27)  4 (2)  5 (0)

Please give us your comments on the program.  

If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speaker's name. 

 •#3 there is not a uniform answer for all speakers, I had hoped more depth/detail in the XSP security panel

•Getting better topic wise  NANOG needs to make bridges, routers: was my topic  NANOG needs to make more of "lesson learned" technical sessions. this knowledge could potentially be applied in real world problem solving methods

•I find the succinct(?) updates perfect; just a side comment if anyone particular person has a gift for humor they should incorporate more into   present???? where appropriate.

•I liked best Todd Underwood's talk, The anatomy of a lead 9121

•i strongly recommend to have the page # for all the presentation slides. that would help audiences to be on the same page as the speaker especially for talks that's time compressed like the ones at NANOG

•In general quite good.  Speakers should be more aware of the time they have for their presentations, some of them (in particular Mr.Lew's) had to be shorted during the presentation.  This is confusing, better prepare a 30 min. presentation for a 30 min slot and decide in advance what leave out.  The panel on security was not really a panel, more a group of short presentations. Too much time was spent on the introductions there and the speaker by phone was just confusing.  Other talks were very nice though, for example: Gill, Boothe and Underwood

•In general, the topics were too basic.  I would prefer to see some slightly longer/more in-depth discussions.  Compare/contrast of various vendor solutions would be great (i.e. Nortel pros/cons vs Cisco in VoIP; next gen core routers compare and contrast, etc)

•It's been a very good program. We've had some really good items during the last couple of meetings. The presenters and those behind the scenes (such as the PC and the staff from Merit) have obviously gone the extra mile to improve the quality of NANOG.

•Like to see more operational content and enough detail to explain things without becoming a treatise.

•more technical detail with specific implementation examples would be nice. Show me more router configs!

•not enough time for questions, peering BOF's more interactive and that is a good approach

•Not enough time was given per to the  presentation,  Fighting against time and questions.

•not interested in IPv6 stuff

•peering BOF(?) was very interesting

•Program was too short and uncompelling to warrant a $400 registration fee.  That's why I didn't travel to Seattle.

•Quite a lively programme this time, definite improvement over recent content. There wasn't enough time for questions. If presentations are going to be longer, then either give them time or cut them short to the allowed time; and allow room for Q&A. Also, if there are no questions after a presentation, the least the session chair can do is generate discussion by having questions in reserve.

•Rob Beverly's was great  In general, the technical program was stronger than usual. I think because of the recent publicity about the need for more submissions, rather than PC composition changes.

•Rrof. Mathews was difficult to (?) ( audio quality and speaking style) and provided little useful information. Could he not have provided any slides?  XSP panel was disappointing in the whole-seemed to be gripes about TCPMD5 trash in April 2005- surely there were other less controversial incidents (like IOS vulnerabilities)?

•security forum:  needs more controversy.  find points of legitimate disagreement and flesh them out.    ipv6: waste of time.  way too much information about it.  no real traffic.  no real adoption.    peering bof:  rehashing public versus private argument.  boring.  do topics of legitimate disagreement:  ratios:  good or bad.

•security panel - I thought this was a decent group and really appreciated the attempt to focus on the tier-2 and lower providers - the detail in the panel was clearly not intended for "advanced" users, but I think this was of value for those with less experience.    Exchange operators - This was interesting and I enjoy hearing about the work at the various exchanges. I appreciate the moderator not repeating exchanges represented in back-to-back meetings - bringing in other presenters helps to keep this interesting and valuable.    Todd Underwood - I always enjoy the Renesys presentations. Todd's work is well researched and well thought out.

•Security panel was horrendous.

•some better presentations than recently, e.g. VoIP, IPv6  Security panel discussion poorly structured

•speakers were rushed

•The IXP panel was awesome and we need more.  The XSP Security panel was awesome and we need more.  Todd from renesys's panel was awesome.  We need more  from people from him.

•the panel discussion wasn't very useful. Having people talk over the phone does not work!

•the v6 talks were all interesting and i would like to hear more about it.

•The XSP session was excellent. Similar items should be scheduled in the future.

•things were good across the board

•this is my first NANOG and I felt at first that maybe I don't belong here. I attended the BOF sessions on Monday night and felt better about attending . In general, I have found this to be useful. Thank you, NANOG

•This was a more varied program than previous NANOGs for me. I'm a VoIP guy, so think going from one IMS talk (last time) to two VoIP talks (this time) is the right direction. That was terrific; I'm still trying to figure out the PGP presentation talk (not that I'm complaining).

•Todd Underwood is speaker of the week.

•Todd Underwood rocked! Wish there was more time for questions after his talk

•Too much v6 talk.  There really is not that much v6 in production, why spend >25% of NANOG on it?  Certainly not because "it is coming" - people have been saying that for half-a-decade.  Please stay on track with _OPERATIONAL_ content.

•Udo Steinegger from Cable and Wireless presented useful information

•VeryGood: Vijay-IOG backbone,Joe-Trust Reflaction,(?)Daniel anycast    Best: AS9121 Prefix limits    Just bad: VOip overview, SBC,XSP security panel.

•Vijay Gill's 10G talk was excellent - please give him more time next time!  Gene Lew's VoIP Overview seemed rudimentary and better suited as a tutorial, or in an intro track.  Robert Beverly's Spoofer talk could have benefited from better closing summaries and/or suggested fixes.  Peter Boothe's talk was entertaining and informative, and (as admitted) could benefit from more correlation to actual network events.  Daniel Karrenberg's DNS Anycast talk was a good follow-on to Boothe's talk.  Joe Abley's presentation on free nameserver software was beneficial and quite informative, but perhaps would be better in an introductory or more general (i.e. non-core-routing) track.  Todd Underwood's Anatomy of a Leak talk was incredibly expository, but (as the questions pointed out) didn't drive at true recommendations, only what didn't work.  The XSP Security vulnerabilities panel could have benefited from more of a "debate" (devil's advocate position, as suggested by others).  Udo Steinegger's IPv6 talk was dry, slow, and poorly prepared.  Jason Schiller's IPv6 multihoming talk did a modest job of dancing around the lack of solid multihoming support; I was disappointed with the lack of recommendations.  Scott Gross's Moonv6 talk was helpful, but lacked direction.  Steve Gibbard's MiniCores talk was a good expose to troubles around the world.  Anja Feldmann's talk about routing policy was informative, but would have been better in a late tutorial (for more time).  Subi (Force10) was a bit vendor-centric.  The IXP panel was quite beneficial for forecasting my own growth.

•VoIP security talk was really boring.

•Why not ask about the beerngear on this survery. my comment for the b n g is that i'd like vendors to show more live powered equipment

 

How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was: 

Well Chosen (16) 1  (32) 2  (13) 3  (2) 4  (0) 5 Poorly Chosen (37) N/A

The level of detail in the presentations was: 

Excellent (12) 1  (29) 2  (18) 3  (4) 4  (0) 5 Unsatisfactory  (37) N/A 

The speakers were: 

Excellent (25)1  (29) 2  (9) 3  (2) 4  (0) 5 Unsatisfactory  (37) N/A 

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. 

 

•attended only router/bridges tutorial-talk was interesting but it lacked a clear focus. i wasn't sure what the pbjectives of the talk were and how they were explained.

•BGP Tutorial clashed with BGP Tools - v unfortunate

•I only attended Raida Perlman's presentation on security and it was great.

•I see some of the same tutorials over different conferences. We probably need new topics for tutorials.

•it was nice to see the traffic matrix talk.  useful and fresh.

•need more advanced topics  Radia is excellent

•Not sure if Radia's first tutorial was actually "intermediate", altough both were a lot of fun, and both were well-done (I wish both had been longer - she had to rush through the ends of both, and we didn't have a lot of time for questions).

•Radia ++

•Radia is excellent security tutorial person! 3 thumbs up

•Radia Perlman was an excellent speaker

•Radra's presentation was delivered in a clear and very understandable manner.

•same as above

•Thomas Telkamp's talk on Traffic Matrices was extremely helpful to me.  The BGP Analysis tools BOF was educational but poorly prepared for the crowd; a pre-meeting prep message might have been tremendously helpful.

•Tutorial for IPv6

 

 

How did you like the BOFs?

The choice of topic was: 

Well Chosen (29) 1  (27) 2  (8) 3  (3) 4  (0) 5 Poorly Chosen (34) N/A

The level of detail in the presentations was: 

Excellent (14) 1  (33) 2  (14) 3  (4) 4  (0) 5 Unsatisfactory  (33) N/A 

The speakers were: 

Excellent (23) 1  (30) 2  (11) 3  (2) 4  (0) 5 Unsatisfactory  (32) N/A 

Please give us your comments on the BOF.

 

•Bill Norton needs to stay within time limits better

•BOFs were very good as usual. Please have them return next time.

•Did not attend BOFs

•did not attend.

•DNS is not the only security risk around, Perhaps next meeting there can be a I-h8-DNS BOF, and continue the other security topics in the NSP-SEC BOF

•do earlier.  the long days are killer on people who work for a living.

•For the love of God, have them in the day (between talk sessions) instead of the middle of the night! Many people come only for the BOF's, so reasonable times would be very helpful.

•great debate was,well, great  Keep these at every NANOG  allow more time for peering discussions and more peering BOF's but in the afternoon

•Had to miss parts for an interview.  :)  Great peering debate, great security talk too.

•I enjoyed dthe BGP analysis and the peering BOF and would like to see more of the same

•I find the peering BOF very useful. I hope to see it on the agenda for NANOG 35

•I suspect the BoF's "suffered" a little bit from having the Beer'n'Gear beforehand. Mind you, the reduced inhibitions of folks certainly made the Peering BoF interesting.

•I wasn't paying attention this time ("need sleep")...

•Monday night sessions went on WAY too long. Everything should be finished by 9-9:30pm. The INOC-DBA track should have been a Sunday item.

•more on applied ? topics vs short term operational ones.

•need to be scheduled earlier in day!

•need to broaden topics for BOF

•Peering and inoc bof's were great.  They need to be at non-conflicting times.  BOF's need to be during the day and the conference needs to be extended.

•Peering BOF - The debate could have been more "controversial" to engender deeper debate. Perhaps a debate on peering ratios might be interesting.

•Peering BoF awesome as usual.  Keep it up.

•peering BOF is great . NSPSEC is stale, stale, stale.

•peering BOF was excellent

•peering BOF was good

•Peering BOF was good, however, we don't need to debate public vs. private again (for a whille) I think we've covered the issues and agreed that mixed model is what most people use.

•Peering BOF was the only one I attended. It was interesting, but lasted a bit long.

•security BOF -beginning was good, but went into(?) at the end. Good participation couldhave used moderation/ intervention at a few points

•The peering BOF, public vs private was interesting, however the contant, self-surving and obnoxious,interruptions by the guy from @Akami deminished the program to the point that I had to leave-the program got out of hand by goofy folks whoe were eith drinking too much or are just rude and obnoxious ny nature

•The timing.  Trying to attend the general session, then the B&G, then the NSP-SEC and Peering BOF's without any time to grab dinner makes for a very long day.  The munchies at the B&G are good, but it would be nice to have some time to grab some real food also.

•Tutorial for IPv6

•unfortunate that they all overlap

•very useful

•wanted more deail in BGP analysis, peering BOF's

•stronger motivation in the BOF's might help, but please keep in mined that this is my first NANOG and I am unfamiliar with the "way things are"  maybe stronger moderation would be counter-intutive to the intended goal of the session.  Really.. I probably shouldn't comment here. I wil admit that the BOF was the most rewarding part of the NANOG for me( I'm a server guy,not so much a networker) again. thank you NANOG

 

 

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

(24) Yes (71) No

 

What other meetings do you attend?

IETF (27)RIPE (16)MPLScon (5)MPLS 200x (2)APRICOT (12)ARIN (17)

SANOG (2)JANOG (5)AFNOG (3)NordNog (2)NZNOG (2)ICANN (2)USENIX (5) Other: 

SIGCOMM, PAM, ACM-IMC

APAN, I2, CENIC and others as come up

JointTech's

ISOCORE (MPLS2005)

APNIC, AfriNIC

HAMNOG

HAMOG

ZEEE

NOMINET

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

•Keep the informal feel  More social functions  Make wireless better  Turn off wireless during talks, rude audience

•Locate conf to a more  central location

•more time for questions  more time for speakers so they aren't rushed

•more time per speaker to allow more discussion of detail

•more topics for BOF  lesson learned technical sessions, similar to SNORT(NANOG 33) and VoIP, Bridges, routers, network security (NANOG34)

•must keep control of peering BOF's-limit 1 question/guest-enough of the group peering inside-click?, let's hear new voices and see new faces. While Bill does an outstanding job, adds great value to the community, this BOF seemd lika a commercial for Equinox

•need tracks.  need shorter days.  more networking time.

•Network was good.  It might be better to have a longer Q&A session after each presentation.

•nice hotel and facilities

•No evening sessions, finish up at 6pm and add another day.

•peering BOF was great debate especially

•please do a single PGP key signing

•Please Please Please consider there are vegetarians who come to NANOG. Food on Sunday night in the bar had no labels, there was hardly any vegetarian food, and even what looked vegetarian had meat in it. Monday beer and gear was better and had some veg food.

•power cords in lounges for laptops  POTS lines for remote callers  commtg/security panel VoIP was not good  SEC panel roxors

•put the bitch session before or well after the welcome party-too much booze was talking on Sunday

•Scheduling was better with less overlap between BOF's of interest.

•telephone speakers don't work well

•The location/hotel was much better than NANOG33.  The date conflicted with MPLScon.

•this was good, if a bit rushed between some presentations. by the time I got to microphone, next speaker was already up

•Tutorial for IPv6

•tutorials overall were good.

•very good speakers topics included Udo Steinegger( great slides/info) Todd Underwood, very useful,Peter B.-good speaker, Eugene-good talks and topics, Scott Gross, Steve Givvard

•What about cutting the general session on Monday shorter and then starting the BOFs at the end of the general session (say 3pm).  The remainder of the talks that would have been in the afternoon of Monday could be added to the beginning of Tuesday and then just end the Tuesday general session a little later in the day.  Just a thought.

•When there are 10 people lined up at the in(?)phone, that means we are likely very interested in the topic

•Why the overaggressive air conditioning?? It's been absolutely freezing again! Is it too hard to get the room temperature adjusted properly? Brrrr.

•wireless could be better

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

•More Vijay Gill!

•more VoIP issues

•MPLS Inter-ASTE updates  MPLS diffserv TE updates  VoIP CAC update

•Please "explicitly" specify what is Veg and Non-veg. And please have enough Vegetarian food options.

•security, engi(?) nets, etc

•topics should stay in focus of real-world operational experience, best practices lessons learned, etc.

•Tutorial for IPv6

•XML and application routing overlay networks(planet lab, etc)

•MPLS powered services like triple play  - Multicasting  - services, services, services and their deployments

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.

 

 

 

 

^ Back to Top