^ Top

NANOG 39 Survey Results

 

NANOG 39 Survey Results

1. How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent

Response Total

in person in Toronto

97%

191

via Web - Real Media

2%

4

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

0%

0

via Web - DVTS Multicast

0%

0

via Web - Windows Media

1%

2

Total Respondents

197

 

(skipped this question)

0

2. Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Very Useful

34.5%

68

 

Useful

60.4%

119

 

No Opinion

3.6%

7

 

Not Very Useful

1.5%

3

 

Useless

0%

0

 

Total Respondents

197

 

(skipped this question)

0

 

3. Is this your first time attending NANOG?

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Yes

46.7%

92

 

No

53.3%

105

 

Total Respondents

197

 

(skipped this question)

0

 

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

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Better

25.7%

48

 

About the Same

28.3%

53

 

Worse

2.1%

4

 

N/A

43.9%

82

 

Total Respondents

187

 

 

(skipped this question)

10

 

 

5. What is your preference for General Session seating arrangements?

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Classroom

23.5%

46

 

Theater

23.5%

46

 

Combination of the two above

25%

49

 

No Opinion

19.4%

38

 

Other (please specify)

8.7%

17

 

Total Respondents

196

 

(skipped this question)

1

 

6. Did you find the General Session and Tutorial/BoF schedule acceptable?

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Yes

93.4%

184

 

No

3%

6

 

No Opinion

3.6%

7

 

Total Respondents

197

 

(skipped this question)

0

 

7. Did you utilize the public laptops near registrations?

Response Percent

Response Total

 

Yes

10.2%

20

 

No

89.8%

176

 

Total Respondents

196

 

(skipped this question)

1

 

NANOG39 Survey - Comments

 

8. Comments on the General Session:

 

Total Respondents

97

 

(skipped this question)

100

 

  1. Hope to add more hot topic
  2. Too many acedemics; their presentations are too pie-in-the-sky and disconnected from actual network relevance
  3. Very good session & keep me interested
  4. Good, more presentation on measurement & troubleshooting will be helpful.
  5. Good
  6. Generally good
  7. Very informative
  8. As a new attendee I found the sessions very useful and very open which was refreshing.
  9. room funny shape put fewer rows, a bit more space, put speaker in middle
  10. Nice breadth of topics
  11. Good speakers & content. Liked the monitor outside the hall with presentation & audio. Audio & visual at the back of the hall was not good
  12. Very interesting, good choice of topics
  13. Very Good
  14. Start on Monday
  15. Good breadth of topics - last mtg I went too was weighted too heavily towards IPv6 in my opinion
  16. Bring back panels! Keynote worked out well. Maybe get someone for next time from You Tube?
  17. The Research session was superlative. Presenting operationally relevant research is a genuine good to the community
  18. I guess if I had a complaint is that I couldnt be in 2 places at one time.
  19. It was my first Nanog and I don't have any complaints about the general sessions
  20. I thought that this particular line up of sessions was the best that I've seen (only three nanogs to my credit) I liked the lightning talks also.
  21. As a student, I found this very enjoyable and very insightful to understand the current ideas and issues I would be facing in the future in my career. One down side is that it does not seem you will be coming back to Toronto anytime soon :(
  22. This was the first time I've attended a Nanog event. I found the atmosphere to be very friendly and open. Being a current telecom student at sheridan I found it very enlightening to see how professionals in our field get along and share information.
  23. The topics were well done. Some of the speakers need a bit of a lesson on how to clearly express themselves...but we're techies not politicians so it's acceptable.
  24. The idea of examining the vulnerability of the global phy layer was excellent. The presentations themselves were modest at best.
  25. Pretty good from my standpoint.
  26. more real operational experience
  27. The room was too deep, impossible to see speakers from the back. Generally speaking the general session was good.
  28. Very good
  29. The General Session was useful.
  30. More service provider business content *might* have been interesting ?
  31. Excellent presentations, directly relevant facts presented.
  32. Good, balanced, interesting talks. Lots of people looking up from their laptops and not managing their networks. I think the Program Committee were able to pick and choose from a good number of interesting submissions this time, and it shows.
  33. liked the talks, liked the content.
  34. Good mix of presentations, of good quality.
  35. Useful. FIB scaling BOF was the main interesting part of the agenda for me, in addition to the main reason for me coming here (hallways).
  36. Good information
  37. Lightning talks are excellent.
  38. RealMedia feed was flakey the first day.
  39. Moved along quickly with good topics.
  40. add a little open mic time at the end of the lightening talks for additional questions/comments
  41. With the Internet maturing, and many of the larger networks controlled by larger organizations, it seems harder for the community to publically share the same amount of information as 10+ years ago.
  42. The presentations were often not up on the website at the start of a presentation. This made it awkward in some cases to follow via webcast because either the camera was pointing at the presenter (not the screen) or the slide wasn't clear enough via webcast to be able to read/follow fully.
  43. Ballroom tough - columns, long room sux Screen tough to read in back
  44. pretty good
  45. a lot of very interesting presentations
  46. None
  47. 1) The rear projector could have been enough to solve the problem of the large pillar in the middle of the ballroom, however it was too dim and appeared to be out of focus for the duration of the meeting. From the back of the room, it was often easier to read the screens at the front of the room than the one at the back. 2) The hotel room block filled up. I registered late, but no rooms were available to me under NANOG's registration group at any rate. (registering late I didn't expect the NANOG discount, but thought organizers should know there are people staying at the hotel that are not part of the count)
  48. Was hard to hear some speakers and focus of rear projector was rather poor.
  49. good program this time
  50. Good topics. i was very interested in BFD, 4-byte AS, prefix list sanity check tool.
  51. General Session was good. Perhaps a little heavy on the research side.
  52. Content was very solid this time around. I really appreciated the talk on BGP MD5, it provided balance to past talks that were more fear mongering/you must implement this or the internet will imminently come to an end-type presentations of the past. It made me realize how some presentations are unbalanced with regard to the reviewing real world implications of deployment, by only covering the reasons why you should do something and what it fixes. This is something the program committee should keep in mind when reviewing presentations.
  53. The room was a bit oddly shaped. Narrow and with columns in the middle. The sessions were very good. Good technical talks.
  54. Good agenda, lots of interesting talks
  55. well moderated, worked well. good content (but i'm biased)
  56. Nothing to add. The discipline towards keeping the schedule was outstanding.
  57. .
  58. Content not as interesting as other times.
  59. Informative. Large screen viewing at the back of the room was blurry
  60. Excellent agenda. The long hall was odd. Very few passageway rows made navigating the space difficult. Some presentations not up site in time to follow along with the presentation.
  61. Speakers need to learn to speak into the microphone. The sound in the back of the room was horrible, with speakers with soft woices. Problem was complicated by TOO MUCH CHATTER. Remind people to leave the bloody room if they want to socialize. Remember, we're geeks and were (frequently) socially and situationally clueless.
  62. Quake topics were great on Mon morning. Todd is a great moderator and kept my attention early (far better than frequent monotone speakers in the morning). Topic spread was great, good job PC!
  63. Long skinny room. And cold airconditioning with -16C outside? Someone in the hotel has a sense of humour.
  64. It is nice to be a part of the community, but some of the very disconnected extremely academic talks miss the meat of what makes the conferences useful. It isn't to say there shouldn't be academic talks, but it would be nicer to have submissions with more depth.
  65. Very good talks. I found almost all to be both interesting and useful. The room was too long and narrow. Even with the TV screen, the back of the room provided poor views and sitting in the area toward the back of the area in front of the screen did not make the screens very useful. (I used the on-line slides when available.)
  66. Content was good. Room layout looked challenging, and the scan-converted back screen was fuzzy for slides (but good for looking at the speaker's face)
  67. the general session talks were good. especially liked the lightning talks
  68. Good and Helpful
  69. It was good overall ... back screen was unfocused
  70. Very good, I really think that the new format is getting better and better.
  71. lots to do and lots to learn
  72. fantastic
  73. Not enough gear
  74. good session
  75. Very informative and relevant to current environment.
  76. Good - relevant and innovative.
  77. General sessions were good. First day sessions were really intersting.
  78. Great
  79. I would say its okay
  80. good
  81. This was a good session, I hope more Toronto sessions will come up.
  82. Good.
  83. Well run, adherance to schedule was appreciated.
  84. Good stuff this time.
  85. Enjoyed the talks and the linkage between the topics.
  86. Sound quality and video not good in the back of the room. No cross aisles in the seating area. This is a comment on the facility only.
  87. Toronto in Feb?
  88. informative but missing the idea of unicast which is security not data tranmission for unicast it does not matter whether your information gets there fast but that your information is secure. It is unfortunate that this was not mentioned.
  89. Keynote speaker is great. Look outside of the normal crowd for a different perspective. Overall I like the agenda this time.
  90. Some very useful sessions, especially R-BGP. (That talk should've been longer.)
  91. Interesting.
  92. good
  93. So far so good...
  94. I would like to see more view screens / televisions in the lobby outside the general session room.
  95. I like the topics, useful.
  96. good choice / diversity of subject.
  97. Great keynote, speaker limited corporate shill talk and was good at mixing business/tech aspects.

 

9. Was the Keynote Speaker address of value? Should the Program Committee continue to seek out Keynote Speakers?

 

Total Respondents

131

 

(skipped this question)

66

 

  1. Yes, also because operators could give feedback on spearker's business model (in retrospect slightly condescending)
  2. Keynote presentation was not that good. There should be more in the future, but perhaps screened better
  3. Good idea. This customer insite gave us an idea challanger. What is direction for IPTV, what will see coming in the future
  4. Yes. However, I would like to see Jeff Doyle present.
  5. Yes & Yes
  6. Yes
  7. Yes; Great talk by CBS Interactive CTO
  8. Ywa, good introduction.
  9. Yes. Yes.
  10. Yes
  11. Yes
  12. Very interesting - it would be nice if there were more time to respond/solve his problems
  13. Yes. Added nice flavor without forcing general to the meeting
  14. Yes, and yes
  15. Yes
  16. Yes, one would be good
  17. Yes, Yes
  18. Yes. Absolutely
  19. I enjoyed the keynote alot and would like to see this to continue at NANOG.
  20. Missed it
  21. Absolutely!!!
  22. Maybe? Not much info beyond "here's our stuff"...
  23. Not amazing
  24. Excellent You should certainly do that again.
  25. Yes, Yes
  26. Yes. The speaker provided an interesting perspective of network utilization. I think this should be continued.
  27. Yes. Avoid political speakers but try to get more stats on growth from an Akamai or Google?
  28. It was a good idea. Someone from "the outside" giving an operationally relevant talk was a good idea.
  29. I enjoyed the speaker and the subject matter. I thik it was a good addition to the program.
  30. Yes.
  31. yes. yes.
  32. Yes. Yes.
  33. I came for the keynote.
  34. I MISSED IT! Perhaps move it closer to the peak attendence time or around lunch.
  35. Yes it was.
  36. Yes. Yes.
  37. yes I found it useful.
  38. Smelled like corporate (which he was, heh). The video was awkward, not sure what the point was. Answered questions well. Could have used more specifics about how they solve their problems, and what they need from networks in the future. Keynote is a good idea, perhaps someone more technical though.
  39. 2x yes.
  40. Very interesting, please continue.
  41. Keynote concept is good, particular keynote speaker could have been better.
  42. Absolutely
  43. Yes, I found the Keynote very interesting, especially given the speaker and his position. I would like to see Keynote speakers in the future.
  44. Yes - more keynotes, but more carefully vet paper proposal.
  45. not bad. something a bit more technical would be good
  46. Very much so - nice to hear how the work NANOG folks are doing exposes itself within corporate environments.
  47. Yes, I think it was great to have someone here who might not usually come to a NANOG meeting. I wonder if it was useful for them to have the chance to interact with the ops community.
  48. I liked the keynote speech. good content and relevant to the current trends in industry. Some of the speaker's info isn't quite correct, but that's not a ding on the 'keynote' so much as the individual's breadth.
  49. Anything of interest from good speakers is welcome :)
  50. Yes on both.
  51. Absolutely. The most valuable and memorable keynotes I've seen have come from people/industries outside the regular pervue of the conference attendees (CBS was a good example).
  52. yes, they are very valuable
  53. Yes it was of value and yes it should continue.
  54. Yes.
  55. It was valuable to hear the opinions of a non-ISP on the challenges they face in providing services that rely on ISPs.
  56. Good experiment, could be a little shorter
  57. Very much so. Please continue this.
  58. Yes, good perspective from those "outside" the normal NANOG realm.
  59. It was entertaining, and while it wasn't of particular value to me I could see it being valuable to others. (Half of the general session might not be particularly valuable to me but I still attend it)
  60. good topic and speaker
  61. an interesting and different perspective
  62. Pretty cool. If that level of quality can be maintained, continue for sure!
  63. Yes
  64. Yes, absolutely!
  65. Was interesting to see what large operators are doing.
  66. i like the keynot approach. speaker was not the best for this crowd though
  67. I missed the keynote.
  68. I thought it was a good idea. I am not sure if it is sustainable but should definatly be considered for a future meeting.
  69. Yes
  70. Yes, on both accounts.
  71. As judged by the amount of questions, it looks like it was of use. Seemed more of a commercial at times, than usual
  72. The keynote was nice. It is nice to have one or two longer talks. Wish it was a little more technical.
  73. Yes, Keynote was good. Should continue getting Keynote speaches, but choose them carefully to ensure they are relevant.
  74. was ok, but light on the technology. keynotes are good, this one could have been better.
  75. Yes, I found the combination of technical, business and media related discussion very insightful.
  76. Yes
  77. To me, the keynote speaker was of value. I do not know if it was of value to other people though.
  78. Yes.
  79. Got called out in the middle of the keynote so I can't evaluate the value of this keynote but I encourage the PC to seek out keynote speakers for future meetings.
  80. Yes the Video over the Internet Keynote was very informative.
  81. yes and yes. important to get the view from the outside world, not just more of "us".
  82. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
  83. Yes
  84. Yes and Yes! I think one great keynote per nanog or perhaps every other would be really great. It's nice to see a different slice of the industry as it relates to real operations e.g. NANOG is not the center of the universe and others are dealing with the same issues we are and solving them in different ways.
  85. It was nice to see, I enjoyed it. Yes, more keynotes, please!
  86. Excellent. A senior engineering level person with a clear perspective on the impact of video on the net in the future. (It was also interesting and sell presented beyond the network impact issues.) If speakers nearly as good can be found, the keynote will be a valuable addition.
  87. yes please keep this ongoing.
  88. I thought the keynote speaker worked well, and we should do it again if we can find more people with interesting things to say.
  89. The Keynote was a great way to frame why we are here and provides grounding to many of the topics presented during the NANOG.
  90. yes, it was of value. the pc should continue this.
  91. I enjoyed hearing from content providers on their perspective on this issue. I encourage cross-communication between groups that should understand each other in order to work together. I believe that keynote speakers are a way to generate this type of communication.
  92. Yes they should
  93. Yes
  94. Yes it was of very good value and should continue.
  95. Yes. I was hoping for more on actual IPTV architectures and how over the top (over the Internet) players such as CBS view integrating with the IPTV service offerings.
  96. keynote was of marginally adeequate value. care should be taken to avoid things like the ces video.
  97. yes I found this informative
  98. i found nothing wrong with the keynote speaker
  99. Keynote speakers with former experience are an asset
  100. YES YES
  101. Session was interesting. Probably not of a lot of use in the near term. It did set some long term expectations. I like keynote speaker sessions in general. Even if their topic is not directly relevant to me, they are often interesting and provide some "entertainment" if nothing else.
  102. Interesting - the videos were a bit awkward. Would be curious to hear more in depth technical challenges.
  103. Yes
  104. The CBS interactive Keynote was interesting. The Teleglobe analysis of the Tokyo failure was also very interesting.
  105. Yes, the Keynote was very interesting
  106. Yes and Yes It is always good to see ourselves from others point of view as this was.
  107. Yes. I strongly recommend that
  108. good
  109. Yes, We recently had a major impact during the world juniors where our backbone flooded.
  110. Yes, I liked this talk.
  111. Yes, Keynote speech was really interesting.
  112. Absolutely. Always great to get perspective outside of the community.
  113. Yes. Difficult for the speaker to know how to aim the presentation, but he did okay.
  114. Keynote was excellent value. Absolutely continue to seek out keynote speakers.
  115. yes
  116. Yes, interesting.
  117. Todd 1st day and CBS guy 2nd day
  118. Nice addition - we usually don't hear from content providers
  119. Yes.
  120. Yes, very much so. Good to get an external perspective.
  121. More is more.
  122. Yes, sure.
  123. yes and yes
  124. It was good
  125. Yes, great to see different points of view
  126. Yes, it's interesting to see from other POV.
  127. yes on both
  128. The Keynote Speaker was great.
  129. keynote was great, thanks to the attendees questions.
  130. Yes.
  131. Amazing. Yes, please get more. This was probably the most valuable session for me.

 

10. Comments on the Tutorials: (Please reference the talks you are commenting about)

 

Total Respondents

63

 

(skipped this question)

134

 

  1. Excellent
  2. The tutorials were mostly good; The netflow tutorial by Berhier could benefit from significant improvement; Maybe a different speaker?
  3. N/A
  4. Well prepared & delivered - IP Multicast/Multipoint for IPTV - BGP Troubleshooting Techniques
  5. I enjoyed the insight provided by the presenters. Their focus was excellent and they kept them moving at a fair clip.
  6. Very long. Very detailed.
  7. Should have had more Canadian speakers
  8. Traffic Matrix, very interesting
  9. Troubleshooting BGP excellent. Phillip should be invited to present at every NANOG.
  10. The tutorials were good. Mabye more tutorials on Sunday? I know this format was used before.
  11. IPTV was just right. Started with basics and built up to complex.
  12. good revelant topics that i was looking forward to hearing. but its too bad some of the speakers were monotone and made me want to fall asleep. ie. the traffic matrix and netflow discussions
  13. Someone needs to slap the sound techs. Mics not working, too low/high, etc.
  14. A common criticism I heard from my students (and experienced myself) was that a number of the tutorial presenters had limited communications skills - people were falling asleep.
  15. Traffic matrix tutorial seemed to be a lot of scatter graphs that just didn't make any sense. Perhaps I missed the part where he explained what the testing scenario was, and how it was implemented.
  16. I wish more time could have been spent on the Netflow Tutorial; too much time was spent on the overview of netflow (which most of the audience was probably already familiar with), and we ran out of time to discuss the examples the presenter was showing. I would have liked to see more of that.
  17. Netflow - quite good.
  18. need new and wider
  19. Excellent - it would be great if workstations could be provided to walk through examples with the speaker - but this may be cost prohibitive based on attendance. Maybe smaller tutorial courses that could allow for this?
  20. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend the tutorials due to either a clashing BoF, the need to have hallway meetings with other attendees, or that the tutorial subject area wasn't relevant to my specific needs.
  21. I liked phillip's tutorial... but who doesn't? :) (nice red pants, we should fund more colors of pants for phillip)
  22. Did not attend. Not useful to me.
  23. Didn't attend.
  24. It would be good to provide tutorial providers with a slide limit. The tutorial on netflow on Monday was over 120 pages, and could have been cut to about 90 to make it livelier, allow more time for questions.
  25. I spent some time in two: Netflow to guard the Infrastructure. Unfortunately, Yann's presentation skills need some work. He also spent far too much time on basics (what netflow is, etc.). IP Multicast/Multipoint for IPTV Again too much basic info. Also a bit Cisco centric. Tutorials should either cover basic info or advanced info. If the latter, give a URL for the basic background, especially if it is something that has been around for some time (e.g. Netflow)
  26. Didn't attend any.
  27. please move back to a separate day so reduce travel commitment for those not attending tutorials
  28. Audio quality was not great. But manageable.
  29. N/A
  30. couldn't attend tutorials by webcast, but they looked interesting.
  31. N/A
  32. ...didn't attend any
  33. n/a
  34. They were helpful. If they could be more hands-on/practical, that would be a bit better. Also, if there were more tutorial sessions, that would also be good.
  35. IPTV/mcast was good. nice to see a cisco person not just talking about the "ciosco cookbook way". I wish those slides make it into the archive online!
  36. n/a
  37. Only tutorial I attended was Telkams BGP matrix speach. I was expecting something far more technical and hope we can get more intelligent speakers like Thomas but deeper into the technical details please.
  38. I didn't attend any tutorials.
  39. All good ... especially the PCH one and the BGP tutorials
  40. IPTV/multicast: Was a good intro from a network/protocol perspective. Considering the impact of IPTV/Video over IP in the services offering, it would be good to have some follow ups and other sessions that expand on this topic.
  41. I found the net flow toutoral dry and a bit novice but the bgp infomatinve and great paced
  42. good introductions
  43. relevant tutorial to my job function well presented-IPTV Multicast.
  44. Tutorials were good. - Attended the IP Traffic Analysis Techniques - Attended the BGP Troubleshooting Techniques
  45. i enjoye each Tutorial
  46. No comments
  47. good
  48. Good ... some were a little dry.
  49. n/a
  50. Multicast - Toerless Eckert Good detailed session. Hope to get a copy of the presentation.
  51. N/A
  52. Network Matrix - good presentation Multicast - - good presentation
  53. Didn't attend them.
  54. n/a on web
  55. N/A
  56. n/a
  57. More diversity please. Vendor-centric tutorials even.
  58. The Telkamp tutorial was especially interesting...
  59. Great ! enough detail to get me interested and started helped establsih a plan
  60. More tutorials! The Netflow tutorial's speaker style was not good. It seems like he was not prepared...
  61. n/a
  62. The Taiwan Earthquake Fiber Cuts: a Service Provider View was very interesting.
  63. both tutorial I've seen (netflow) was much more a sessions. not many "real life" example.

 

11. Comments on the BoF's: (Please reference the talks you are commenting about)

 

Total Respondents

70

 

(skipped this question)

127

 

  1. BOF is a goow way, hope to cont.
  2. Peering BOF: hit & miss. 100GW was very good discussion "old vs new" was boring
  3. FIB one was useful. Peering one less useful than usual.
  4. Peering BOF - good format, good structure. Would have like an introduction for all the participants - who are the peering representatives from each company
  5. I attended the Interconnect BOF and enjoyed the debate format.
  6. Peering BOF: When did 97 become long ago? Facilitated very nicely. Intersting
  7. Peering BOF - excellent
  8. Yes. (ISP Security). Informative discussion of industry relevant topics.
  9. IPv6 was good - no specific comment
  10. Need power in BOF rooms
  11. Well done format for the Peerong BOF
  12. Peering BOF was too long this time. The Canadian speaker should have been in the general assembly. The survey was odd.
  13. Peering BOF seems to be in a rut. The last few ones that I've attended could have been interchanged.
  14. The FIB BOF was much better than I could have anticipated. There should be financial pressure on vendors to ensure the future of their products. I was a first timer to a NANOG conference, but could in the future contribute to the security BOF on two topics.
  15. I attended the Peering BoF. I found it hard to follow as I guess there was alot of knowledge built up in previous events. It might have been nicer to have laid some ground work for us newbies before getting into the indepth conversations.
  16. Throughly appreciated. However they do seem to pivot on good social management. Norton and Quesada did an excellent job bringing in the "new and old bloods" for an excellent discussion and debate on the merits of public peering
  17. The Peering Tutorail was lively but I tend to be a newbie. Hard to tell how important it was.
  18. Peering BOF always fun, the old school vs new school was pointless though. FIB BOF was excellent.
  19. Peering BoF was too long and unfocused, history portion seemed interesting but just too unfocused.
  20. I attended the peering BoF and found it interesting, and the format was very interesting as well; it was my first BoF so I was unsure what the format was. I look forward to attending more BoFs in the future as it is more interactive and allows for useful discussion.
  21. Peering bof - 'campfire stories' were interesting, but less tiem for those.
  22. fib bof was great
  23. Good - although a few opinionated individuals continuously hijacked agendas, and most of what was being said during those times was not valuable for the overall discussion and mostly just ranting.
  24. Peering BoF seemed to ramble a little and might benefit from slightly tougher chairing/steering. Slightly concerned about the "Transit Price Survey", that it might breach terms of supply for some IP transit vendors, and what the results might be used for. I think it needs to be made clear that completing that is optional. I think the "peering history experiment" tried at the Peering BoF was good to some extent. I think that "internet history" topics might be useful to newcomers, so that they don't repeat the same mistakes in the future, or they understand some of the folklore. They are also a bit of light relief!
  25. bof's generally worked well (for the ones I attended)
  26. FIB BOF was good.
  27. The pee
  28. Didn't attend.
  29. The peering BOF's new face to face arrangement continues to be engaging. The oldsters / youngsters debate was interesting, but could have been more engaging if there had been a 3-4 slide informal presentation. The debates could have been better with short presentations too. Not many slides, 2-3,and possibly with a final slide comparing the two arguments so it would be easier to compare results.
  30. FIB BOF was good, and the Hankins slides her a nice set up for the rest of the presentations.
  31. Peering BoF Semi-interesting and useful. Seemed to try to cover a bit too much in too little time. The history lesson was a bit interesting, but also not very interactive for those of us not involved in it at the time. This would be a great presentation topic (Peering back in the day...)
  32. Would have been nice to see at least one of the BoFs on webcast
  33. v6 operations BoF was a good idea but unfortunately only 3 audience members participated making it less interesting.
  34. Good peering bof, like the seating and lots of topics. Keep the bofs informal like this
  35. Audio quality was not great.But manageable.
  36. The peering BOF's were interesting, although I didn't participate actively it was a good to listen in.
  37. FIB BOF was excellent. peering BOF was weak this time
  38. couldn't attend BOFs by webcast.
  39. BOF's were great. The peering BOF is one of the key reasons to attend. I became a little dragged out over two sessions. It should be a little more focused on discussing "issues". If there are fewer issues the box would just run a little shorter.
  40. Attended the ISP-SEC BOF -- again the content was very solid. Danny did an excellent job, providing good speakers and moderating. The time allotted was good. The only thing I would change is the layout of the room, to be more the horseshoe style of the peering BOF to encourage more discussion.
  41. Wish the peering BoF didn't conflict with the IPv6 BoF. The FIB BoF was very good, and very useful. The IPv6 Ops BoF was a little strange. Seemed like only a few people in the room were commenting about doing IPv6 and not a lot of useful discussion.
  42. BOFs were good, I actually prefer them going a bit further into the evening. Only problem was this time there were multiple BOFs I wanted to participate in, i.e. I'll always want to attend the peering BOF
  43. really want dynamically schedulable bofs
  44. IPv6 BoF well presented and informative. I hope to continue seeing this BOF as early adoption continues to happen.
  45. N/A
  46. Some hvac issues (whooshing over speakers in one room, not dealing with large amounts of humans and laptops in the other). I think the legal concern that was raised over the survey was silly. The pacing of the two-segment peering bof was weird.
  47. n/a
  48. War stories session at peering BoF were moderately entertaining but not terribly useful. FIB scaling BoF was very interesting.
  49. Attended the peering BOF. Seating was painful.. It put all of the old school folks in the center and new people way out on the edges. If Bill wants to try something new, I suggest a larger circle with limited rows deep ~4 or so to get people packed in and all close. Taking care of the Thai company at the begining was great! The new thing with CQ (Old vs New) was kinda lame imho (might have been nice for new people but you'll see that from surveys). Fantastic discussions otherwise! Keep up the great work Bill et al!
  50. Peering needed more focus, but it's still good to get to hear the industry discuss itself.
  51. Peering BOF was too drawn out and spent too much time on war stories and not on immediate issues. The FIB expansion BOF was excellent! Both the presentations and the discussions were useful and, at least for me, valuable for future planning.
  52. Peering BOF was entertaining.
  53. Peering BOF tries to mix too many things into one session. The talks/debates should be portions of the plenary and leave the peering personals as the BOF.
  54. Peering BOF Very good and very informative, nice setup with the 'round table' seating.
  55. Good ... found the peering BOF a little dry .... lacked participation.
  56. Peering BOF part 1: business as usual. But always worth attending
  57. FIB was very useful. Peering BoF good as well.
  58. NA
  59. did not attend any BoF as I am a newcomer so was most intersted in tutorial sessions
  60. No Comments
  61. didn't hear
  62. n/a
  63. N/A
  64. Went to the FIB busting one. Pretty good.
  65. N/A
  66. Peering BOF is worth it everytime, if for nothing but the entertainment value.
  67. spent most time at the tutorials
  68. n/a
  69. I was expecting more from the ISP Security BOF
  70. peering BOF was amazingly informational.

 

12. Schedule comments:

 

Total Respondents

72

 

(skipped this question)

125

 

  1. Good format, presos in morning, bofs in afternoon great
  2. Good
  3. Okay
  4. Schedule was fine; the BGP tutorial was long; 1.5 hrs would be a better time
  5. good - no problems
  6. Well paced
  7. Will condsider attending via mpeg2 next time Didn't know of laptops near registration
  8. OK
  9. Some of the back to back talks were a bit long
  10. The new schedule is good.
  11. There was enough of interest that I had a difficult time deciding what to attend. That isn't a bad thing.
  12. 3 day format has made it much better. More time to meet new people.
  13. Toronto in February isn't ideal, but it is a nice city.
  14. The schedule was excellent. I would consider visiting future NANOG conferences in other countries (I'm from Canada) based on the session timing.
  15. The scheduling seemed fine. There was just enough time to stroll around toronto in search of food and make it back at a decent time.
  16. I think the schedule was well put together. Although, the coffee schedule shout be changed. There should be coffee available at all times. :)
  17. Good
  18. realtively good.
  19. Like the Sun-Wed. Research forum isn't great for me, so I like it being Monday morning (hangover time). Other topics were interesting and well-placed in the agenda.
  20. I prefer 2days.
  21. Too many good speakers on Wednesday when everyone was packing up to leave, interesting presentations should be moved up to monday/tuesday.
  22. Schedule was excellent; no complaints.
  23. na
  24. Good schedule, good talks.
  25. Programme is fine...
  26. Ok.
  27. Schedule was good.
  28. I still liked the old agenda format better. Sun bofs/tutorials, done by Tue.
  29. You need something very lively for first up Wednesday AM
  30. Had a hard time meeting the 9am start because of snow and my distance for travel (and rush hour :( )
  31. I like the variety. I think Sun nite - Wed noon is perfectly fine.
  32. see above. please move tutorials back to a separate day (i.e. sunday) so that those not attending can reduce the time required to attend nanog.
  33. N/A
  34. Like it
  35. I like the 3-day schedule with 1/2 day of general sessions. works better for me as a webcast attendee.
  36. Schedule works well with the mon-wed layout.
  37. prefer 2-day schedule.
  38. Schedule was good... wish BoFs didn't conflict.
  39. No comments
  40. - Could use more lightning talks - Even if there was a slight incentive to do the talks, I believe a few more people would do the tutorials (including myself), which could allow smaller and more customized sessions - If there is enough people to do the talks, possibly extend the session by one day, and make the first and last day specialty sessions, which only some people would attend.
  41. Schedule was fine
  42. Well paced. Only wished I could be in two places at once at one point.
  43. Acceptable.
  44. Love the schedule changes. I would only suggest adding 30 mins to lunch.. It's really hard to get somewhere, seated, eat, back to the conference on time and always cuts into the 2pm speaker. I would be happy to support combining ARIN/NANOG twice yearly, removing the third, and making moving either the Oct combined to another time or moving RIPE (travel is really tough in Oct with 14 to 21 days of travel). BTW: On the join meetings some work needs to be done on the ARIN handoff hopefully promoting attendance.
  45. Fine.
  46. S'ok.
  47. While I don't like the added day, the new schedule worked well, not leaving me feeling too tired to become involved in late-night sessions. On hte whole, it is a win when we aree not meeting jointly with ARIN. (Perhaps we can figure out a way to do it even with the ARIN meeting attached.)
  48. Schedule was fine.
  49. like the 2 day schedule better
  50. good schedule ... i like the 9am start time
  51. Very good timing, thank you.
  52. a earlyer start and finish would have been better for me and connecting to the GO trains
  53. i liked it
  54. Well organized.
  55. Overall schedule was good. Might want to decrease the time between sessions to make the day a little shorter.
  56. maybe have shorter breaks and longer/more sessions
  57. great - I liked th elayout with the general common sessions in the am, and the options in teh afternoon
  58. No comments
  59. it's ok with me
  60. Good schedule
  61. I strongly prefer the schedule where the general session is on Monday-Tuesday. This will allow people to fly out Wednesday morning, and skip a tutorial rather than a plenary talk.
  62. I liked it, good schedule.
  63. very interesting for me BOFs and/or Tutorials were scheduled for the same time.
  64. Still think there's some value in expanding the timescale somewhat, especially if we have more submissions now.
  65. schedule was great, and closely followed
  66. I avoid tutorials, so having 1/2 day content and 1/2 day tutorials just extends the time away from home for me.
  67. Schedule is fine but would probably be better if it started on a saturday.
  68. Great this time around.
  69. i liked the format - common sessions in the morning - tutorials
  70. quick and to the point.
  71. It is fine.
  72. schedule was perfect, long lunch time to socialize.

 

13. Did you find the public BoF room of value?

 

Total Respondents

73

 

(skipped this question)

124

 

  1. Yes
  2. Good
  3. Yes
  4. Yes
  5. Yes
  6. Too hot during Peering BOF. Pillar in middle of room in other BOF area was distracting
  7. N/A
  8. Unaware of it
  9. Didn't use it.
  10. for focused chats yes
  11. Didn't use.
  12. Nope, didn't know it was there.
  13. Yes
  14. Yes! More so than the tutorials. The peering BoF was excellent!!
  15. Did not use.
  16. No.
  17. I think it may need to be better publicized.
  18. Yes
  19. not sure what the "public BoF" room is... perhaps I missed the description of it as I was unable to attend on Sunday's opening session/orientation.
  20. na
  21. Yes
  22. I didn't use it this time.
  23. Didn't use
  24. What room?
  25. Didn't attend.
  26. Didn't use it.
  27. n/a
  28. yes
  29. Not personally.
  30. Yes.
  31. N/A
  32. N/A
  33. Did not use
  34. n/a
  35. Nope.. didn't even know it was there..
  36. did not use the public BoF room... Probably because there was not a lot of publicity about those sessions.
  37. didn't use it.
  38. didn't use it.
  39. Yes.
  40. Yes
  41. What public BoF room?
  42. Didn't use but good idea.
  43. I wanted to use it but there wasn't a "hole" in the schedule where I wasn't already interested!
  44. Did not use it
  45. No opinion.
  46. I am not sure which room the public BoF room is so I suppose it had no value to me. I did attend both peering BoFs and the room it was held in was generally fine except that we had to move a table in order to get the door shut to block noise from the hall.
  47. Didn't use.
  48. sure.
  49. No.
  50. I didn't use it.
  51. yes
  52. yes
  53. yes arranged peering in one
  54. Absolutely. It was more useful than the regular rooms.
  55. didn't go to any :-(
  56. Too hot.
  57. NA
  58. no comment
  59. Yes
  60. n/a
  61. Yes
  62. Yes.
  63. N/A
  64. n/a
  65. Didn't see it.
  66. N/A
  67. didn't end up using it, but did use one of the quiet side rooms for negotiation with another provider.
  68. Haven't used it.
  69. yes
  70. n/a
  71. yes
  72. I did not.
  73. did not notice the public bof room, sorry.

 

14. What did you like/not like about the meeting venue?

 

 

 

Total Respondents

106

 

(skipped this question)

91

 

  1. air co/heating too loud sick building syndrome
  2. COLD! No more winter NANOGs in sub freezing locations
  3. Would have been nice to have lunch locally to the NANOG site
  4. Since I'm from the Toronto area, I can say that January & February are generally the coldest months in the city. this may not be too accomodating to visitors from teh different parts of the NANOG community. I feel that anywhere between March & December would provide a less harsh environment outsode for our visitors to enjoy our city during off hours.
  5. Toronto would be a better choice in the summer
  6. needed a coat check
  7. Path was nice. Toronto in Feb, who woulda thought it be cold?
  8. All fine
  9. 1) Fine if you could ignore the temp BRRR! 2) The coffee cups are too small!
  10. Central location - Good No cell service (very minor - wait, this is a good thing) PM sessions were cold!
  11. Part of the room the sound was really bad
  12. Had to walk miles to get outside to smoke
  13. Not having to go outside into the weather.
  14. Toronto in February...
  15. First breakfast was much better than other two. Local (to me)
  16. It was too cold! Climate should be considered when choosing the location.
  17. too cold
  18. Toronto, February. Do the math. Having the PATH so you could get off hotel premises w/o freezing helped with that a bit, though.
  19. Toronto in Feb.
  20. nice accessible location downtown toronto. i like that it was held in toronto. even if it was february. :)
  21. Nice hotel
  22. The venue was good.
  23. The food drinks.
  24. Over all very good. Accessible, central, lots of neat stuff near by.
  25. Too few tables in the common area. Main hall was far too long, and third screen in the back was not sharp, so screens at front looked nearly the same to me. I liked the hotel, and Toronto is a great place.
  26. Too Cold! No more Toronto in Feb!
  27. I thought it was good, I would like to have seen more keynote-type discussions. There was good technical content. It would have been nice to have the presentations for all of them ahead of time, in order to review them and generate questions ahead of time.
  28. v expensive rooms
  29. narrow meeting room hard with pillars
  30. Great venue, great location in town.
  31. I thought the hotel was pretty good. Decent bar with a wide beer selection. Being linked to the "PATH" was important this time of year. Quite nice rooms. Good work on getting the in-room connectivity included in the NANOG room rate. Awfully dry air in the hotel. Downtown Toronto has great facilities that were easily accessible from the hotel, and the excellent public transport system in town probably saved people money on rental cars. I think we should come to Canada more often, if hosts volunteer (or can be coerced).
  32. Felt a bit like being stuck in a nuclear bunker, but that can hardly be helped. Tables are a bit high in the main room, which gives me backache when using laptop :/ Good food/etc at breaks.
  33. I'm hoping the next NANOG meeting will be held closer to Europe :-)
  34. The chairs were excruciating. And, I think the layout of the general session ballroom was less optimal than in years past -- the last row of chairs was just too far away from the podium.
  35. I think the seup was good, I do not have a negetive comment on this
  36. Some of the presentations had small text that could not be read from all seats in the main room... the back projection screen was not that clear. Provide a better mic setup for the speakers one that lends to tall and short people ;)
  37. Nice to be able to go to places without going out side, made the weather more bearable. Hotel staff was very good. Hotel wireless was lame as is most hotel networks.
  38. Local. Toronto rules.
  39. Cold, but the tunnels made the impact less. There was a city tour, but it wasn't widely announced. It would be god to have a formal one on all future conferences.
  40. The weather ;^)
  41. hated the air handler in room b/c
  42. I liked that the hotel was on the PATH. Easy access for transportation, food, etc without having to go outside
  43. Yeah, it was unseasonably cold. But since my boss won't pay travel, it was the only way I could come (I'm local to Toronto.)
  44. N/A
  45. Toronto in Feb was actually great!
  46. No particular thoughts - it's just a hotel.
  47. in basement cell phones don't work too cold too cold can I say it was too cold like the underground walk ways
  48. way too cold... please, no more arctic destinations in mid-winter good selection of lunch choices within easy walking distance, unlike some previous venues
  49. A bit more crowded than usual - but that's a good thing, as it means attendance is up.
  50. Cold weather
  51. I have no complaints, the venue was excellent.
  52. like the aftgernoon BOF format
  53. long skinny room is bad for the general session. didn't care for the fact there was only one set of doors to the ballroom used for the general comings and goings, either.
  54. i liked the real media stream because it allowed me to pause and resume as I was interrupted in my office during the webcast. windows media player didn't give me a pause option.
  55. Close to additional services. (Restaurants, shops etc) was an asset. Long main session room was a little uncomfortable depending on where you were with the seating. (ie. Get your seats early)
  56. The -20 degree temperatures. Positively fridgid.. It's so cold we've only left the building twice since we got here. Otoh, I'm grateful there is an entrance to the underground tunnels in the building. The free internet service in the room was an awesome perk for booking on the nanog rate.
  57. No complaints
  58. No coffee coming back from lunch
  59. It was very cold :-(
  60. Hotel rooms were nice (much nice than St Louis), and it realy does matter (to me anyway). Seemed to have plenty of room, and was convenient. It was cold here, but I'd rather be in Toronto in Winter than Phoenix in Summer...
  61. great city, great hotel, good prices, good bar, great meeting facilities, great connectivity. do toronto at this hotel again.
  62. good venue
  63. I cannot think of anything negative.
  64. + Internet at hotel room + central location
  65. - Location was good for me (5 minutes from several work locations, 30 minutes from home) - Network connectivity also good - Seems too expensive for what we need
  66. the long hall in the plenary. the pillars were difficult and i think the screens and water station was a good workaround.
  67. Very convenient, plentiful food that wasn't snatched away the second that a break was over (nice for tardies), hotel staff was friendly and helpful to a fault, temperature control was noticeably acceptable, NANOG tech crew did their usual great job (although, having a screen in the back of the room showing ONLY the slides, like the ones in the front, would have been useful, esp. if presenter didn't provide slides to NANOG beforehand). Nice to see the face, but sometimes the slides weren't up long enough to read them in the back.
  68. Did not like the columns in center of main meeting room. Project repeater screen at rear of main meeting room was somewhat out of focus.
  69. The location for winter was ihmo was horrible. There's no reason why we can't influence our sponsors to have a warm location in winter and a cooler location in summer. On the up side it forced everyone to stay local.. (I left the hotel once). I am happy we have meetings outside of the US, would love to see Puerto Rico or other non-US north american locations added to the mix if we can get a regional sponsor.
  70. good connected to the rest of downtown
  71. Apart from a/c, fine venue.
  72. Seemed fine.
  73. Cold, cold, cold. Main room too long and narrow.
  74. It was excellently cold.
  75. Loved the venue, v. v. nice.
  76. breakfast seating wasn't very handy, a couple of more seats would be nice.
  77. funny shape of the ballroom
  78. It was very easy to access via GO Transit and the PATH.
  79. venue was great ... good location for travel ... and spacious.
  80. Cell phone coverage was rather poor being at the bottom of the hotel.
  81. Room layout with the large screen midway was good. Timing was good. Wireless was good (thanks Tony?). Food selection was nice too. Keep it up with the fruit!
  82. cell coverage was spotty internet was quick
  83. Some of the speakers were a total bore --- poor presenting skills, not enough interaction.
  84. nice hotel network access good
  85. Easily accessable site in a great city. Was a bit cold, but I thought that was just a minor inconvenience.
  86. Hotel was fine.
  87. Good venue---but cold (I live in GTA so what can I say)
  88. Meeting venue was good - easy access to transit.
  89. Very good venue
  90. I liked that it was in Canada - earier travel for me
  91. ok
  92. Very good technical detail.
  93. Central location was convienant. Hotel was nice.
  94. Yes
  95. Toronto is a good place for NANOG. Hotel okay, a hell of a lot better than the Adams Mark in St Louis!
  96. Really like talks on day 2.
  97. cold
  98. The layout, limited cell signal. And Toronto is cold in February!
  99. Good location close to everything needed.
  100. Long skinny rooms suck.
  101. I'm glad I haven't had to go outside. :)
  102. central location, near public transit. close to a wide range of restaurants and entertainment.
  103. It was all good.
  104. like: beer 'n gear was great to network with people, long dinner break. not like: tutorial disguise in sessions.
  105. very close to my house :)
  106. Loved the venue! We should use it every winter! Was quite fun to come to Toronto at this time of year. Enjoyed the location a LOT.

 

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

 

Total Respondents

60

 

(skiped this question)

137

 

  1. An IRC so we can contact easier to people we don't know
  2. More presentation
  3. 30 min presentations were great!
  4. The structure of presentations worked well as well as the way the agenda was followed
  5. Your network accessability was very good. Your display capabilities at the rear of the main hall could use some work. Posting the presentations prior to delivery was useful.
  6. restaurant guide - ones via Path
  7. Beer & Gear was good. Should've had more social opportunities to connect.
  8. All/nothing I was happy
  9. Nothing abou the running of meeting annoyed me.
  10. lots of lag on the conf. network. Wouldn't mind seeing usage stats.
  11. I think everything went relatively well.
  12. Internet access was very good. There shouldn't be a huge column in the middle of the meeting room.
  13. I think the presentations went well. Having the projectors display what was going on for the people in back was very helpful.
  14. Wireless was good no problems on the 802.11a network.
  15. Kapela's wifi worked great again (and the hotel internet worked great, for once). More tables
  16. Keynote concept definitely improved general interest in NANOG, though the speaker could have been better.
  17. I thought it was useful and informative. I would suggest having more in Toronto since it's close to where I live :)
  18. need espresso!
  19. Not sure - very good.
  20. I think the wider main session room works better.
  21. Real Media feed had issues on Monday -- no video.
  22. Stated before
  23. I really liked the keynote.
  24. See comments about presentations on web site. Not something that concerned me as a "viewer", but I would recommend mics be turned off during breaks, as "idle chat" during those times has been broadcast .. and that is invariably without the knowledge of the people conversing.
  25. research talks and lightning talks are good additions to the agenda and should continue.
  26. more dynamic bofs like the peering bof like the community seating at the peer bof
  27. There was lots of food. I'm not sure food at EVERY break is necessary, but it was appreciated. (I have no self control when presented with food free for the taking so it wasn't good for my health.)
  28. Everything was ok.
  29. Most things seemed fine. I did notice a couple minor audio problems. That could be solved with having a quick equipment check before starting BOF's as this would avoid people wondering if they were passed the 'dead' mic or not.
  30. no comment
  31. I have not been able to receive the Multicast stream at uidaho.edu. Our multicast routes through PNWGP, and here is what i heard from them "Quick check shows that we receive MSDP SA announcement for it and prefer Internet2, but we receive the mroute back to the source from MREN but we don't receive SAs for this group." in addition i'm pleased to see that they next NANOG will be in the northwest and I'll try to attend in person.
  32. Every year connectivity gets better.
  33. - Webcast was not saved. Hard drives are cheap, and it would be nice if they were saved. - If I knew this before hand, I would have saved the multicasts myself and made them available for later consumption.
  34. Difficult for me to put a finger on specifics. the whole thing gelled well.
  35. Venue. Staff. Schedule was amazingly ontime. Food. Convenience of meeting venue to hotel rooms. Great location for going out to dinner etc., even considering the cold weather (which I did not mind at all.) Room cost was reasonable. The newcomer's event was a little too "personal", e.g. "all about me" rather than "all about NANOG". Unstructured-ness was okay though. Community meeting was interesting for the most part and helpful for insight. Keep moving toward more transparency.
  36. All the usuals are improving.. scheduling, registration, conent, hotel accomidations. There's always room for improvement but great job bringing us to where we are.
  37. probably more social events in the evening or after the last sessions
  38. The PATH made getting around without going outside work well. Made finding lunch easy and quick. The hotel network was excellent as was the NANOG wireless. (I used 802.11a.)
  39. Good job SC and PC, overall a solid and engaging program. However, Session Leaders and esp. Steve should be much more excited/upbeat when starting or ending a session. It is a great way to engage the audience and start the session.
  40. As this is my first, I felt that it ran fairly smoothly. No complaints.
  41. food was good, sessions were good ... i found a little US centric
  42. the main hall set up wass too narrow
  43. nc
  44. Registration was great.
  45. Warm locations in the winter.
  46. More technical detailed rather than research presentations.
  47. The overhead presentation screen's were not very clear in the main hall.
  48. it was all good
  49. very technical
  50. n/a
  51. Wireless network was easily accessed and performed well. All audio and visual were easy to hear and see.
  52. Good
  53. Better topics and speaker selections is good.
  54. Laptop dance could be addressed so that there is less stuggle between presentations.
  55. There was yet another Geoff Huston presententation and he was, well, not uninteresting this time. ;)
  56. The 3 days schedule is nice.
  57. More tutorials. Specially in topics like email/SPAM, security, monitoring, configuration tips, and other operational topics that are not routing-centric.
  58. seemed to be well organized. kudos to carol from merit for her assistance with our booth.
  59. not comments, it's my first (not the last) nanog. everything seem to run smootly.
  60. 802.11a seems to be working extremely well.

 

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

 

Total Respondents

51

 

(skipped this question)

146

 

  1. OSPF/ISIS comparison
  2. Security, Performance, Troubleshooting
  3. QOS/COS Deployment
  4. MPLS/VPN/Traffic engineering
  5. Curbing the Ddos problem
  6. Topics: QOS' Peering
  7. DNS tutorial would be interesting - "Global Perspective of DNS" (may have been done recently - this is my first NANOG)
  8. Law enforcement/CALEA and how it impacts operations
  9. Amaborts experience with network evolution. More info on Apples iPhone
  10. I was asked to get somebody to speak from Nortel on optical. I will follow up with Ren Provo
  11. 40G vs 100G
  12. nope, not right now.
  13. Maybe some deeper dives on current peering "map" (high level) which essentially shows the value of various service providers peering with others, and can clearly call out distinctions in what makes a good peering opportunity vs. not such a good opportunity.
  14. perhaps a tutorial on proper DNS server operations?
  15. More Canadian venus.
  16. More on access (cable, xDSL, PON, etc.). How to get from here to there...L2TP and other fun tunnelling tricks.
  17. DNS, DNS, DNS
  18. Have Bill Norton give the Video Internet talk
  19. I'm new to nanog, so IMO, why don't we see too many discussions on mobile convergence, IMS etc..
  20. N/A
  21. i like the following speakers randy bush, steve bellovin, bill woodcock. other good speakers are david clark, scott bradner, steve deering. general topics of interest: security, routing/address/DNS/management tools, new protocols/technologies, norther tier network plans
  22. Carriers readiness for Pandemic Episodes- Who is doing what?
  23. It would be nice to see an ARIN policy BOF in the winter schedule. The winter meeting is before the ARIN meeting and most of the policies that will be voted on at the ARIN meeting have been turned in. Hopefully, this would solicit feedback and more participation in ARIN policy from the operations community. Alternatively or in addition to, it would be nice to have a short presentation (lightning talk?) during the general session to present an update on the policies that were passed at the last ARIN meeting.
  24. Nothing other than to encourage Keynotes at the CTO level as was done this year.
  25. - Free alcohol and presentatios is a good thing
  26. followup with additional perspectives on the video issues raised by 'traditional broadcasters' this nanog.how have asiapac last-mile proiders solved delivery scaling problems? online gaming and online distribution of offline gaming [each world of warcraft release is a non-trivial load for providers]. "broadband calea" deployments: vendor-specific (out of nescessity and vendor-neutral. boring but essential: equipment inventory & provisioning systems and why you don't just want the IT people to do it. second and third order M&A experiences.
  27. Not really
  28. Future topic ideas: Lawful interception issues.. technology, operations, security
  29. Current major events aways interestng (such as the Quake). It was nice to learn something new about under sea cabling. I think it would be nice to have something *new and interesting* Ex: mobility in planes/space/ground terminals or mobile devices and how it actually works.. the idea being some new not normally represented vertical to present on what they do, how it relates to NOG etc.. Something like the guy who was at the peering BoF speaking on net neutrality.. It's always nice to see something new (keep me coming back for content and not just interpersonal networking)
  30. More advanced tutorials, more things that will grow involvement in the community
  31. Would like to see more security related talks and, perhaps some discussion of DNS security.
  32. If video stays a hot topic, then let's have some disruptive perspectives (peer-to-peer, etc) and a focus on people who are doing things, rather than people who are just talking about things
  33. DDoS mitigation and detection would be nice
  34. More of video and IPTV if possible.
  35. Beer and Gear is totally about BOTH, not only about the beer. There were only a few vendors in Toronto, very sad.
  36. no
  37. More along the same track, less academic related presentations.
  38. MNA
  39. More MPLS
  40. Digital divide - how can the large networks help lessen this impact
  41. I suggest to have more technical talks to solve the issues that internet experiencing now
  42. add some fun
  43. n/a
  44. More case studies like the Earthquake presentations. Very interesting and educational.
  45. multicast
  46. Some more insight from industry and cost modeling.
  47. For winter meetings, there must be palm trees growing outside the venue.
  48. I would like to see Van Jacobson talk about his research.
  49. I'd like to hear someone from the IETF arena speak about SPEERMINT. Voip peering needs definition, let's get some traction on that.
  50. n/a
  51. Do BOF in the evening till 9.30 PM. We need to use all time available.

 

17. Suggestions/volunteers for future NANOG Hosts: (The folks who work with Merit to locate hotel, provide connectivity, build hotel network, and staff meeting)

 

Total Respondents

31

 

(skipped this question)

166

 

  1. Limelight Networks
  2. Thanks for the hard work!
  3. N/A
  4. go for cheaper hotel
  5. Akamai - Boston - Fall Limelight - Phoenix - Winter
  6. Someone in Boston. Akamai, perhaps?
  7. Let's get the old school scan converted video feeds solved. It's 2007 now. :) Slides are very hard to see on remote streams. I'd be happy to help with that, and I've recently run across some RGB/HD capture cards that might work out for pulling high res from the podium. *[email protected]* I won't be attending Bellevue, but should be at Albuquerque though.
  8. The location was good and the hotel was good.
  9. I'd like to volunteer to help with the next conference. Peter Harrison - Netflix.
  10. OC-3 seemed a bit excessive in terms of bandwidth and likely cost (but if VSNL was ok with it...)
  11. None
  12. More garbage cans should be made available, or perhaps a designated location to return used cutlery etc. to. Would be better than seeing people trip over a forgotten cup of tea, etc.
  13. peak traffic utilization was sub-30mb/s. getting reasonable connectivity should no longer be a big deal and should not be a barrier to most locations.
  14. n/a
  15. .
  16. Akamai makes lots of money from convincing all these content people to buy rather thanbuild. They should spend some hosting a NANOG in the northeast. hurricanee electric - traditional independent ISP that is still succeeding.
  17. Places similar to Montreal and Toronto that have built-in infratructure attached to the hotel or nearby. Minneapolis comes to mind. San Antonio (near riverwalk) does too. LA was lousy - had to drive to get to anything (esp. something like a convenience or drug store). Orlando suffers from that problem too.
  18. Make sure the hotel has adequate bandwidth for the rooms. The hotel bandwidth often is exhausted when all of the NANOG folks go on-line. This was nto a problem at this NANOG, but often is.
  19. Keep up the good work.
  20. Terago Networks would like to assist an any way possible in future if there are Toronto based NANOGs again.
  21. More vendors, more gear. Try holding it when it's warm in Toronto. ;)
  22. no
  23. No comment
  24. I don't imagine you could promote another Canadian one anytime soon, especially a winter one :-)
  25. a little bit fun activity
  26. n/a
  27. none
  28. Netwrok/wireless worked awesome!
  29. n/c
  30. n/a
  31. Great job

 

18. Suggestions/volunteers for future NANOG Sponsors: (The folks who provide monetary support in exchange for exhibit area and community recognition)

 

Total Respondents

25

 

(skipped this question)

172

 

  1. N/A
  2. Include the city/country people are from, allous for more of a community feeling
  3. Better placement of Break Sponsor booths is needed. (We were a sponsor)
  4. Nortel, APC
  5. Transmode was a nice kind of sponsor I think. I'd like to see more of the type of companies trying to break into the north american market, such as they are, or those with interesting new products.
  6. no comment...
  7. Hospitality suites in the evening are always appreciated :)
  8. None
  9. N/A
  10. At some point I think it would be appropriate for my company to sponsor/assist with a Nanog meeting. It would depend on my departmental budgetary contraints and/or funding environment.
  11. No comment
  12. sandvine. ecitel. huwei. nortel. lucent.
  13. n/a
  14. probably more input for your day-to-day life as an network provider/isp
  15. Terago Networks would be interested in sponsoring future Nanogs
  16. no
  17. No comment
  18. n
  19. n/a
  20. n/a
  21. none
  22. Great value for cost of conference.
  23. n/c
  24. I am sure Afilias will glady provide sponsorship again in the future.
  25. Thanks

 

19. Why do you attend NANOG?

 

Total Respondents

121

 

(skipped this question)

76

 

  1. Cont and location
  2. get more information
  3. Hallway track
  4. to meet with people
  5. Meet people in industry, to have an idea what problems they have, where industry goes
  6. Keep in touch with community & meet with network guru/geek
  7. Talk to service providers and get feedback on our products.
  8. To be informed To meet peer
  9. - Learn the pain of network operators! - Build on relationships
  10. - Meet peers in the same industry and share experience - Technical sessions
  11. To gather info from the community about experience in the field to assist in my growth in my career.
  12. To keep up with current events in the industry. Make contacts
  13. This was my first NANOG and the primary focus was to gain an awareness of the concerns of the technical decision makers at IXs around the world and in Canada especially.
  14. it was close, first time Have attended 30th IETF. Thought I might meet my customers (did not)
  15. Meet people & stay current
  16. To connect with peering partners
  17. Now opportunity, but I'll come back cause it's interesting
  18. Yes
  19. Learn from Experts Meet & discuss common issues with Industry peers
  20. To meet people - keep up to date - good tutorials
  21. Primarily peering, secondarily education
  22. Education and working up contacts.
  23. Intelligence on unusual issues. Peering
  24. Tech & "Networking"
  25. Learn new things - tools, growth experience, colo
  26. To network with other high-level people in my field. (ie: "Talkng with smart people") To spend 2-3 days doing nothing but learning about what's interesting in the realm of network operations.
  27. build relationships
  28. i wanted to meet the people who build the internet and see what is discussed between them.
  29. customer relations and good fellowship
  30. I attended nanog because our professor Bill Farkas of telecommuncations at sheridan encouraged us to check it out. Seeing as this is the first time Nanog has ever been held at our doorsteps I think it was a great experience.
  31. To learn.
  32. Very educational and a good prep for entrance into the industry.
  33. Its kind of like the church of the internet. No commercials, lots of thoughtful and influential minds. A culture of openness and intellectual integrity. Excellent forum for understanding trends.
  34. To see what is of concern with Internet operators
  35. Social networking #1, technical info #2, vacation #3.
  36. to hear voice.
  37. To keep in touch with customer needs
  38. I've always wanted to attend for the experience and the opportunity to meet others in our field.
  39. learn about asn32, meet people i otherwise only see on email !
  40. meet with peers
  41. Hear directly from the folks who are making the Internet work; learn from their experiences, carry back the knowledge to my team, and stay abreast of the evolution.
  42. a) To meet with existing contacts - concentrating discussions over lunch/dinner/breaks at NANOG and reduce the need for additional travel. b) To network with the attendees, and make new, useful contacts. c) To listen to interesting talks and participate in BoF discussions. d) To visit different and interesting locations, so that I can see the local culture, rather than suffer from "Starship Hilton" syndrome - where you could be anywhere in the world if you don't go outside the hotel.
  43. content and networking, and community outreach.
  44. Meet people and talk; drink beer and tasty food in an interesting foreign city :-)
  45. Due to my IESG role, and current topics that are discussed both in IETF and NANOG/RIPE/APRICOT.
  46. Because it's the most valuable venue for connecting with my professional peers. There is inherent value in the "hallway track". Meeting someone and establishing a personal relationship, even for 5 minutes, can change the landscape of a more traditional, list or irc-based relationship.
  47. Was curious as to what it had to offer.
  48. To meet women
  49. Meeting industry people.
  50. The educational and professional advancement opportunities provided.
  51. re-connect with Ops community
  52. Networking with the community. Stay in touch with my peers.
  53. To share and learn from other people's operational experiences, to find out about new research and tools of interest, and to find out "what's going on" in the NANOG arena.
  54. Stay abreast of current issues... stay informed.
  55. I write tools for network management; I like to see what others are doing and what problems others are having that may be new opportunities for tools.
  56. meet people discuss issues research
  57. work with many internet service providers
  58. To meet with the people who my work tries to help (I do security work). NANOG attendance is vital to me to know what operators are facing and what their problems are and what they deal with daily.
  59. Understanding service providers issues
  60. To learn about what other larger and more experienced operators are doing and to take advantage of the lessons they have learned that they are willing to share.
  61. operator interraction, social networking. presentations/BOFs
  62. I attend NANOG to stay up-to-date with new technologies, issues, events and best practices for internetworking.
  63. The Socual Aspect of meeting people face to face.
  64. Exchange of new ideas and opinions..
  65. To be involved in the community and discuss policy such as routing policy, ARIN policy, IETF work, etc to further good Internet stewardship. Also, to feed back these concerns into our company and encourage our company to uphold good Internet practices
  66. People networking first, technology/operations knowledge second
  67. industry contacts, stay current, meet with large numbers of customers/providers.
  68. meeting with people
  69. I just think it is an incredible demonstration of goodwill and cooperation that helps our technical ecosystem at various levels. I respect MERIT and Nanog hosts/sponsors very much.
  70. Find another business opportunity. Keep in touch with new technology,development.
  71. - Great value - Most interesting conference - Share/get information on what the rest of the world is doing - Do some investigation for future projects
  72. mainly for networking/contacts and sharing information.
  73. maintaining technical chops. Keeping a perspective larger than just my business and company. Face-to-face meetings with colleagues and peers. Bouncing ideas off of a good collection of practical brains. Getting good ideas from others.
  74. Connect with the operator community
  75. To keep abreast of current concerns and practices of network operators.
  76. Over time it changes, many years ago almost 100% for content.. Content became somewhat lame and old then more for networking with peers / other companies. Sometimes it's for meeting/getting a peer on the network. Now it's a combination of obtaining clients, sleaking to peers about how they solve various problems (usually in the bar) and attend new content. (BTW: This is the first time in years I have attended ALL of the content and noticed the hallways seemed less full so I think the content was much better this time)
  77. easy way of being connected to the community and to learn more about things you never read in mailing-lists
  78. Speaker, content interest.
  79. People, information, escape.
  80. Peering and presentations on research were prime drivers as was touching bases with the rest of the industry.
  81. networking (face to face) with peers.
  82. To meet up with my extended family.
  83. As a junior network operator, it is important to see what the bigger networks are concerned about and are working on.
  84. updates on where everybody stands with their work and the 'networking' with people doing the same job.
  85. to stay in touch with colleages and goings on in the industry
  86. I attended this meeting as I joined the mailing list recently and it was close to where I work, so getting travel expenses covered was easy.
  87. To learn more about what is going on in the network world
  88. Catch up with industry peers and learn
  89. I like networking with past colleagues and new contacts. Some of the presentations also allow for further examination back at work.
  90. Sessions content, catching up face to face with my peers, industry gossip.
  91. to learn procedures and keep up to date on network activites
  92. Trying to keep in touch with the network community
  93. n/c
  94. To interwork with peers in the networking community.
  95. Meeting other individuals in the industry, discussing operational issues and vendor equipment problems.
  96. To learn more about the community.
  97. I attended NANOG to hear some of the keynote speakers and make some new contacts
  98. Meet and share information with peers.
  99. recently connected to our area Research Education Network, ORION - it renewed my intersted in the large network
  100. I am currently enrolled at school and its an opportunnite for me to explore and meet the people that already in the field
  101. for network
  102. To meet people and to listen to the speeches.
  103. Am a sponsor, and was interested in hearing current and relevant service provider challenges and discussions.
  104. to meet with people I know by email :-), to make new acquaintenances in the industry, to know something new from the sessions, to relax :-)
  105. its kewl
  106. Meet up with folks across industry. Listen to discussion on interesting topics. To build up the t-shirt collection.
  107. Face time with teammates and more exposure to players in the industry.
  108. meet people, hear interesting talks etc
  109. Part of job requirement.
  110. Meet with others who have the same problems but different solutions
  111. To update my information.
  112. Peer negotiations, stay current with the community.
  113. Primarily to arrange peering, secondarily to learn
  114. to learn from the presenters and spark discussions in the work place.
  115. I needed to see ppl in the community and it sounded like the best place to find ppl in the branch.
  116. To gather new ideas about products and services for my company.
  117. manage a global network operations centre
  118. Learn new things...
  119. informational purpose.
  120. Largely to meet old friends, recharge myself, get in touch with what is happening and get away from day-to-day work-related drudgery.
  121. part of my job

 

 

 

^ Back to Top