^ Top

NANOG 41 Survey Results

 

NANOG 41 Survey Results

Albuquerque, New Mexico (October 14-16, 2007)

How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent (Response Total)

in person in Albuquerque

94.4% (117)

via Web - Real Media

2.4% (3)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

0% (0)

via Web - Windows Media

3.2% (4)

Answered question

124

(skipped this question)

2

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

34.4% (42)

Useful

62.3% (76)

No Opinion

2.5% (3)

Not Very Useful

0.8% (1)

Useless

0% (0)

Answered question

122

(skipped this question)

4

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

YES

28.2% (35)

NO

71.8% (89)

Answered question

124

(skipped this question)

2

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

Better

19.3% (22)

About the Same

52.6% (60)

Worse

2.6% (3)

N/A

25.4% (29)

Answered question

114

(skipped this question)

12

Did you find the informal BoF room of value?

YES

60.2% (68)

NO

39.8% (45)

Answered question

113

(skipped this question)

13

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

YES

89% (105)

NO

5.1% (6)

NO OPINION

5.9% (7)

Answered question

118

(skipped this question)

8

Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?

YES

17.5% (21)

NO

82.5% (99)

Answered question

120

(skipped this question)

6

Did your experience at the IPv6 Workshop/Tutorial meet your expectations?

Yes

No

Response Total

Hands-On IPv6 Introduction Workshop

62.0% (31)

38.0% (19)

50

Introduction to IPv6 Routing Tutorial

79.6% (43)

20.4% (11)

54

IPv6 Technical Issues Panel

82.0% (41)

18.0% (9)

50

IPv6 Studies - How We Did It and What We Learned Panel

78.0% (39)

22.0% (11)

50

Answered question

61

(skipped this question)

65

What could be done to improve the IPv6 workshop/tutorial sessions that were held on Sunday?

Answered question

34

(skipped this question)

92

  1. "Hands-on" should be re-titled "Basic Intro". Nothing wrong with that, but I was hoping for more technical depth in "how to design/build an IPv6 network addressing scheme and network infrastructure."
  2. a dual track format for beginners and more advanced user would probably improve the usefulness of the v6 tutorials
  3. Add discussion of updating provisioning/mgmt tools to support V6
  4. Couldn't attend the 1st day
  5. Did not attend
  6. did not attend
  7. Discuss real implementation options.
  8. focus on practical replacements for IPv6
  9. give v6 addr space to attendees
  10. HANDS ON!
  11. have some labs and maybe some people who have experienced real world migration speak.
  12. have them during the work week
  13. Host IPv6 Peering meeting or BoF.
  14. I think more examples of where companies have deployed IPv6. I understand that vendors are not something that we like to have on panels (due to salesmanship) but I think regarding this topic it is warranted to get the "real" information. Also based on the number of people in the room it is still very important.
  15. Include a perspective for non-techies, end users, managers
  16. Intro to IPv6 was not much of hands on. It was similar to a gagillion other IPv6 tutorials many of us have gone through in the past ten years, much of it with the same hype, much of it misleading. Joel's session was good. Phil's routing was about right. Panels were OK.
  17. It seemed to be focused on a much more technical/experienced level. Slow Down and explain a little more. Hands-on usually means attendees doing things other than viewing slides.
  18. Jordi needs to focus on technical issues and drop the promotional aspects of his slides.
  19. more operational experience; real router configs; vendor caveats
  20. more providers, less ix operators more ISP & enterprise presenters, IXs have it easy. also have an IPv6-specific peering BoF
  21. more real-life, less "for dummies" stuff
  22. More solutions, e.g. solving the AAAA issue for v6 islands whatnot.
  23. N/A
  24. N/A
  25. n/a
  26. n/a did not attend
  27. No Jordi Palet please.
  28. Not conflicting with the NANOG tutorials as there was good stuff in both that I wanted to hear about
  29. Not Sunday, but business day
  30. provide more case studies and discussion of actual deployments no more sunday sessions!
  31. Sessions on multihoming end sites. DHCPv6, Application transition
  32. the presentations on the IPv6 studies could be more dinamic and informative...
  33. Was unable to attend IPv6 workshop.
  34. Where was the "Hands On"? Hands on would be nice

Would you like to see IPv6 Workshop and Tutorials at future meetings?

Yes

No

Response Total

Hands-On IPv6 Introduction Workshop

76.9% (50)

23.1% (15)

65

Introduction to IPv6 Routing Tutorial

77.9% (53)

22.1% (15)

68

IPv6 Technical Issues Panel

97.1% (66)

2.9% (2)

68

IPv6 Studies - How We Did It and What We Learned Panel

95.9% (71)

4.1% (3)

74

Other (please specify):

  1. expand techincal issues to include more particpants focus on specifc areas
  2. IPv6 Peering BoF
  3. Maybe run the intros next to the panels to save time for something else
  4. More case studies./
  5. more discussion on the deployment/operational issues
  6. n/a
  7. Need more sessions on IPv6 addressing schemes and BCPs - how to lay out the network space for clients and enterprise networks
  8. rather than different case studies each time, a recurring study on one particular network may be interesting, to see how the experience changes over time for a particular organization
  9. Some content related to pitfalls in deployment in more complex environments would be good.
  10. WHAT?

Answered question

79

(skipped this question)

47

Has your organization implemented IPv6 yet?

YES

41.1% (44)

NO

58.9% (63)

If you answered "No", could you provide some reasons why not?

 

  1. Beside meeting the OMB IPv6 mandate, there has been no driving need for implementing IPv6 (no business case as an end user). Note: this not from an ISP perspective
  2. content network; will begin experimental this year, but cannot deploy AAAA unless end users are more reliable.
  3. Cost and complexity. For a major enterprise this is a major undertaking of building a second, parallel network infrastructure that must be managed and operated at same high level of availability. Need DHCP, DNS, NTP, glue services, network management (netflow, interface counters, etc.) This is a major cost and complexity and management increase and the gain is limited due to current network IPv4 system doing the job "well enough" for the time being. It is understood that IPv4 space is running out and that IPv6 must be deployed, but this is a seriously non-trivial task.
  4. Currently investigating this....growth has been difficult enough to deal with.
  5. currently working to transition to IPv6. Contractual issues being out major hold up.
  6. Customer software in our core that needs fixing; in-process.
  7. difficulties in acquiring reliable v6 transit
  8. Dual stack since 2001.
  9. Hard to find IPv6 transit support from other peering connections.
  10. Have allocation, working on plan
  11. haven't managed to get upstreams to route it yet
  12. Heresy: IPv6 may not happen. No point burning money on it until its certain. May end up with IPv4 and lots of double-nat instead.
  13. in process of testing and planning
  14. In progress
  15. ISP doesn't support v6
  16. ISP support
  17. IT say it is low priority compared with other priorities
  18. It's a waste of time. There is no traffic, there are no customers, there is no content and the protocol solves no real problems.
  19. Its implemented in some areas but we are still working on integration.
  20. Just got allocation this week
  21. lack of interest or sense of urgnecy
  22. Lack of resources and no real urgency at this time.
  23. Lack of testing and training of internal staff.
  24. Lack of user demand, lack of engineering resources, still have sufficient amount of IPv4 space.
  25. Licensing costs from vendors (access router level), low interest from customers. This NANOG has highly changed my mind though, and will be a new priority for Q4.
  26. low priority :-(
  27. No business case to justify
  28. no customer demand yet
  29. No customer interest at all. Would deploy if there was ANY interest
  30. no demand from customers. Have small test implementations running but not a networkswide roll out
  31. No economic model shows how I can make money from this TODAY
  32. no one is paying us to do so
  33. no time, no resources
  34. nobody cares enough - no customer demand
  35. Not available at upstreams
  36. Not enough time
  37. On my radar but not high enough on the list.
  38. only as a test ("corner" of network)
  39. Our hardware is ready, but implementation is a lot of work that can be committed to more profitable use by delaying v6 until it is necessary.
  40. Peering operator - until a week ago, absolutely zero demand from customers. Network is V6 capable, although backends aren't at this point (work has started on that some time ago, but with no demand it's not high on our list right now).
  41. plans are afoot to have IPv6 enabled on the infrastructure
  42. Small organization, no incentives at this point, no upstream native connectivity available from current providers
  43. still developing support in the applications
  44. Time/Money & no customer demand yet
  45. To date, there has been no push to acquire space and being utilizing it.
  46. Too busy ... sorry excuse I know, but will focus on it in the near future.
  47. too complicated; no reason to do it
  48. Too risky to deploy
  49. upstream doesn't have it
  50. Vendors, not a public push, universities not asking for it yet
  51. We are content. Where are the eyeballs?
  52. We are getting started, though we don't yet offer v6 to customers. Cost of upgrading routers Cost of engineering time No customers asking for it yet
  53. We do not have the support from our provider and they have made it to cost prohibitive to make the conversion.
  54. We're planning, not implementing yet
  55. Working on it.
  56. zero paying customer demand

Answered question

107

(skipped this question)

19

Comments on the Newcomers Orientation:

Answered question

36

(skipped this question)

90

  1. ------------
  2. attended BGP multi-homing instead, viewed slides and history on web later
  3. did not attend
  4. did not attend
  5. Did not attend
  6. Did not attend.
  7. Didn't attend
  8. Didn't attend.
  9. excellent and fun
  10. good work!
  11. It was fine.
  12. Less dry than before. Unfortunately few people, but was very interactive. LOVE the newcomer=experienced dance card idea.
  13. Maybe we need a badge color for 1st timers? The mixer helped
  14. missed
  15. missed it
  16. Missed it because of presentation overlap.
  17. missed it because the IPv6 panel overlapped
  18. Missed most of it unfortunately.
  19. n/a
  20. n/a
  21. n/a
  22. n/a
  23. n/a
  24. n/a
  25. n/a
  26. n/a
  27. n/a
  28. n/a
  29. n/a
  30. n/a
  31. n/a
  32. needs more newcomers
  33. Nice mixer. Keep trying new things to encourage the 100 or so new folks to attend
  34. Too many overlaping meetings, couldn't attend.
  35. unfortunately I missed it.
  36. well run, though attendance was a bit low

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question

37

(skipped this question)

89

  1. content was rich and relevant, however Randy Bush's antisocial behavior, such as playing Second Life on his laptop and listening to music on his laptop during its duration, served as a bit of distraction
  2. did not attend
  3. Didn't attend
  4. Fine up until the silly, childish behavior by some on the MLC. Such a bore.
  5. gack! stay focused
  6. Good discussion and overview.
  7. Good! Informative.
  8. Good, please continue.
  9. great
  10. I don't do politics
  11. I liked seeing the people.
  12. informative and inclusive
  13. It was good, mostly because the presentations were to the point, and the audience did not get out of hand with the questions.
  14. keep presentations short, more time for "community" discussion. OR make it longer and encourage discussion first, then presos.
  15. less raucous than previously. i guess that's good.
  16. missed it
  17. missed it
  18. much better than before
  19. much better than last time
  20. much, much, much too long
  21. n/a
  22. n/a
  23. n/a
  24. n/a
  25. n/a
  26. n/a
  27. n/a
  28. Need to encourage increased participation. Consider if someone wants to sponsor refreshments for the community meeting... people usually show up for free food/drinks. Use the community meeting for Q&A for SC candidates - i.e. make them stand up at the front and take questions, before elections are opened.
  29. Not as many soap boxes this year
  30. Recuse
  31. testy
  32. the bickering between MLC, SC, & individuals either needs to be totally in the open or omitted from the meeting.
  33. the level of political infighting and passive-aggressive childishness in the Q&A was extremely disappointing
  34. Too much detail.
  35. typical meeting - too much insdie politics, friction that goes nowhere
  36. Unstructured, poorly chaired.
  37. well run

Comments on the General Session:

Answered question

35

(skipped this question)

91

  1. about average, though a little bit on the light side for useful presos; LISP-*, etc were filler
  2. Agenda is good this meeting.
  3. All very interesting & applicable to my needs - good job
  4. Couple of the presentations seemed interesting. Problem was that slide difficult to see, weren't posted until half-way through presentation, and accent was not able to be understood by over half attendees.
  5. felt like there was lack of talks with all the time allocated to the lightning talks more peering talks in the general session make the general session informal like the peering bof
  6. Generally good
  7. Generally good selection of topics
  8. generally liked it.
  9. good
  10. good
  11. Good
  12. good - intersting topics
  13. Great agenda. Excellent panels. Some really good lightning talks.
  14. Great session - but too much of IPv6. Would have loved to hear about other topics more.
  15. Great talks at this meeting.
  16. I enjoyed the session
  17. Interesting, a good mix of topics.
  18. More lighting talks!
  19. more panels! lightning talks are great. keep them up.
  20. most topics did not interest me
  21. multiple tracks may be merited - some of the Monday content (in particular the LISP - optical talks) was not of particular interest to considerable segments of the audience
  22. n/a
  23. n/a
  24. none
  25. Pretty good material all around.
  26. requires significant technical familiarity
  27. shorter presos so you can fit in more
  28. sometimes hard to hear and/or read the text in the presentation on the screen (some presentations weren't written to be visible)
  29. time limit enforcement on lightning talks greatly appreciated
  30. too much ipv6
  31. Very interesting topics and presentations.
  32. very useful
  33. Was fine, really liked the lightning talks.
  34. what do you mean "general session"
  35. Yes. 100GE update perhaps too technical from Stratalight guy.

Was the Keynote Speaker address of value?

Answered question

58

(skipped this question)

68

  1. ARIN attorney was very good speaker. Slides were *readable* hurray!!
  2. Definitely!
  3. didn't attend
  4. I found the keynote address to be interesting and entertaining.
  5. I thought this was a good addition to the agenda.
  6. missed keynote
  7. no
  8. no
  9. No. Legal talks in the AM are a bad idea.
  10. not especially
  11. not really
  12. not really on target for me
  13. Not really. A keynote should be exciting and engaging. The Cbs CTO was a fantastic example of a resource we do not normally have access to at NANOG. Clearly didn't have a grasp on all of the facts presented.
  14. Stephen Ryan - irrelevant for me
  15. Steve Ryan may not have found much favour in this audience, but unfortunately this audience needs to realise there is a big world out there, and the big world is talking some of the unpalatables Steve brought up. Valuable.
  16. the talk was very informative and timely. good topic
  17. this keynote was particularly good. the most relevant and interesting so far since the keynotes began.
  18. topical and engaging - better than last time
  19. Yes
  20. YES
  21. Yes
  22. yes
  23. yes
  24. yes
  25. yes
  26. yes
  27. yes
  28. yes
  29. yes
  30. Yes
  31. Yes
  32. Yes
  33. Yes
  34. Yes
  35. yes
  36. yes
  37. Yes
  38. Yes
  39. Yes - interesting
  40. Yes (ongoing right now)
  41. yes it was veru good
  42. Yes, but please keep political stuff to a some what minimum.
  43. yes, excellent
  44. Yes, had some interesting things to think about.
  45. Yes, I enjoy a mix of economic/business/policy speakers mixed in with the tech stuff
  46. Yes, I found the keynote speaker excellent.
  47. Yes, lively discussion.
  48. yes, sponsors deserve some of the spot light
  49. Yes, this is an important topic that needs to be brought to the attention of the entire NANOG community.
  50. yes, very good
  51. yes, very much so.
  52. yes, will be good to know the talks ahead.
  53. Yes.
  54. Yes.
  55. Yes.
  56. Yes.
  57. Yes.
  58. yes; quite. need more like that.

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

Answered question

23

(skipped this question)

103

  1. BGP Multihome - very interesting
  2. BGP Multihoming was quite informative
  3. BGP Multihoming was useful. Got some ideas for different approaches.
  4. BGP Tutorial: EXELLENT! I would like to have had it 10 years ago. It was useful to refresh concepts and will help a lot people that's starting to learn about BGP.
  5. did not attend
  6. Did not attend.
  7. didn't attend
  8. IPv6 Case studies was of interest to gage vendor's ability to support IPv6 functionality (and in hardware).
  9. IPv6 Sunday session was very useful.
  10. IPv6 was good, probably should be repeated
  11. IPv6: very useful
  12. layer 3 vpn for v4 and v6 excellant. presenter spoke too fast
  13. n/a
  14. N/A
  15. n/a
  16. n/a
  17. n/a
  18. n/a
  19. None
  20. optical panel - excellent speakers w/ wide range of experience and future views
  21. Useful as always.
  22. v6 hands-on, while good & appropriate, is dull due to repetition
  23. v6 was good catchup course.

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

Answered question

41

(skipped this question)

85

  1. Attended peering bof, good session as usual.
  2. didn't attend
  3. First peering BoF to attend, solidified my decision to remain at PAIX for now.
  4. good peering BOF
  5. I wish I didn't have to decide between peering and isp-sec. Peering bof is a lot of fun, it usually wins.
  6. I would like to attend both the peering and security BoFs. Having them at the same time makes this difficult.
  7. IP Security: quite useful & enlightning
  8. ISP Security BOF very informative
  9. isp: new insights
  10. n/a
  11. n/a
  12. n/a
  13. need more bofs, more real bofs. the peering bof content has fairly little to do with peering--not useful to someone wanting to learn about peering or learn more.
  14. None
  15. Peering - somewhat entertaining, good for newcomer to put name to face. But low in dialogue/debate on current issues.
  16. peering and security, as usual, overlapped. this was a Bad Thing, as i definitely would have liked to attend both; *many* others felt the same.
  17. peering bof and sec bof were together, i hate it when that happens, please try not to do that, they are both good.
  18. Peering BOF interesting and popular.
  19. peering bof is always fun like the seating at the peering bof more time at the peering bof would be helpful
  20. Peering BOF should be in a much bigger room and go on longer. Same for security BOF.
  21. Peering BOF started very poorly, newcomers would not have had a clue why they even showed up. Please next time start with an intro about what the peering BOF is and why it's important to attend. Starting with the Provo survey results was not a good idea imho esp. with only input from 31 people at past BoFs. The peering personals was well worth it as always.
  22. Peering BOF was less entertaining than some (but still worth attending). Better distribution of microphones would have been handy.
  23. Peering BoF was very helpful
  24. Peering BOF. No open forum? Seemed like a waste
  25. Peering, as usual, was great.
  26. Preferred the informal meeting of ISP-sec bof over the nanog/lecture style of this meeting. There was little opportunity for informal discussion and meeting others type activity. But the presentations were very good!
  27. Preferred the informal meeting of ISP-sec bof over the nanog/lecture style of this meeting. There was little opportunity for informal discussion and meeting others type activity. But the presentations were very good!
  28. really enjoyed ISP security. storm analysis was intriguing
  29. Room too small for Peering BoF, again.
  30. security - rehash of discussions on many lists nothing new as there is no solution, short term for "bad" isps.
  31. Security - The storm report was quite interesting The session on DNSSEC & LV less so.
  32. Security and Peering should not be in parallel!
  33. Security BOF is greatly improved from previous NANOGs
  34. Security BOF was excellent.
  35. Security BOF, had a number of interesting talks, the session feels more are more like a session rather than a BOF, but I think that is OK.
  36. stop scheduling security & peering BOFs at same time peering bof is good, could put out some tables to put out a page on your network & business card
  37. The discussion is always good... but no transcription/conclusion was made on the website
  38. the ISP Security BoF was very good & informative
  39. The Peering BoF was, as always, great. I love the fact Bill brings the audience into the discussion, not just one person talking and everyone pretending to listen while they read e-mail. (Or fill out survey forms. :)
  40. The peering BOF wasn't as I had experienced in the past. I think this time there wasn't much discussion of issues which I think should be focused on. In the past these were very informative as well as entertaining... we should try to get back to that.
  41. what public bof room??

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

Answered question

64

(skipped this question)

62

  1. $ for parking. Otherwise very good.
  2. ~ perfect
  3. ABQ is a tail circuit flight... otherwise fine
  4. ABQ is just a little boring
  5. all was great
  6. bad/boring city, but hey, MERIT takes what they get and works with it.
  7. bar closes early on Sunday
  8. Beer'n Gear room was too small.
  9. central bar was great. Central meeting area downstairs was great. 2nd floor centralization was great. Hotel was close to airport. Weather was reasonable for season. Decent rooms and access to internet. Only gripe was breakfast was nasty, but not sure nanog has ability to check before choosing location.
  10. cheap, good restaurants near by. albuequerque is kind of a pit, but it was ok.
  11. City is poor choice
  12. close enough to drive, 2 hr trip! where was the bottled water on Monday/Tuesday (although getting a glass full from the cooler was ok, too)
  13. Decent weather; not enough rooms @ main hotels
  14. did not like that there were few direct flights to abq hotel and conference facilities were nice, though rooms were a bit pricey given the location
  15. Direct flights were hard to find.
  16. Disliked the weird vibrating floor in conf room and the lack of open restaurants in walking distance. Liked the room - large enough space
  17. Downtown Albuquerque. location
  18. Excellent loc. Inexpensive, easy travel, nice weather.
  19. General session room too cold
  20. Getting there. Spaces were great, no layout concerns. Plenty of local food, entertainment.
  21. Good venue.
  22. hard to fly into
  23. Hotel layout was dizzying - BnG in a trapped room, need a map to find both main event rooms, etc. Rooms were decent though.
  24. Hotel staff were very helpful.
  25. Hotel was in a bad neighborhood that precluded exploring the city by foot. The hotel personnel themselves recommended against going outside at all at night and even said that going out alone during the day was not wise. The people in Albuquerque were overall very friendly and helpful.
  26. I think the location does have a lot to do with how long people stay and how much "fun" people have at the event. There wasn't much to do outside of the meetings which are where the hidden discussions get very interesting. Also I think even if attendance is good at this event it may cause people to not come to the next one based on the experience here. Nothing against the city however I think locations where people within walking distance can have discussions etc it makes things better overall.
  27. in my home state
  28. it was a maze :-)
  29. It was great
  30. it was ok
  31. It was to quiet, no after hours entertainment.
  32. Like: connectivity Dislike: not registration on Sunday morning.
  33. liked the forum - the rooms and the PA worked well here
  34. Liked the layout. Didn't like the water - stinky!
  35. more microphones for panelists in the panel discussions might have made them a bit smoother
  36. More practical issues needs to be discussed. It seems that most of presentations are from Vendor or research organization. I see less and less participation from actual ISP Network Operators.
  37. N/A
  38. Nice weather. Restaurants were so so.
  39. NO COFFEE AFTER LUNCH => BAD!!
  40. No problems.
  41. No restaurants opened on weekend
  42. not bad
  43. Not enough elevators at peak periods. Not enough water provided. Wasn't sure I'd have liked ABQ, but I actually throughly enjoyed it.
  44. Not enough good food close by. In room Internet (T-Mo) both too expensive and sucked.
  45. Not enough rooms in the block for the rate.
  46. not like - too remote for me. (suggestion: Seattle?)
  47. not very good selection of restaurants
  48. nothing major, cell phone coverage is terrible, verizon wireless internet service is kinda lame for the price.
  49. podium and screens were good. not enough seating in general forum. close proximity to restaurants were nice
  50. Price of rooms; no Public-Free wireless in the rooms
  51. Pricey, nothing to do
  52. satisfactory
  53. Sound system had a muffled sound. Sound is critical particularly when you have a majority of English speaker listeners when ESL people present.
  54. Thanks for the "real" coffee.
  55. The bars close too early.
  56. the only comment have is that probably you want to consider a place that is less than 3 hops from europe....NY, Chicago, MIA, Dallas, SFO, etc etc etc
  57. The Optical Panel was also very useful
  58. The temperature was comfortable which was good Not much to do in the immediate vicinity of the hotel. (Bad)
  59. Venue was good - perhaps a fraction small.
  60. Very dry air, caused havoc with sinuses... not a nanog-issue but :)
  61. very far away from europe - no direct flights. Otherwise very nice
  62. very good
  63. Very little to do in ABQ.
  64. What happened to the eggs & bacon on Tuesday?

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

Answered question

31

(skipped this question)

95

  1. age old problem... better presentations
  2. All fine. Beer and Gear room very crowded, bar and catering staff were clock watchers.
  3. Beer & Gear should be in larger room to hold an audible conversation
  4. can we coordinate the parties so we don't miss any
  5. Easier location to get to.
  6. Generally the organization and content was pretty good. Location can be improved. Also since a lot of the things people gain from NANOG is peering contacts maybe having events integrating this would be good. If a sponsor is in multiple loctions maybe the location of the event shouldn't be dictated by sponsor. Ie have one of the meetings a year in the same location every year and have dedicated sponsors.
  7. I do not like the security BoF going against the Peering BoF.
  8. i like lightning talks
  9. Lightening talks are great
  10. Magic wand to make the whiners go away? :-)
  11. MLC and rbush need to just ignore each other. please, pretty please!? it's all just drivel.
  12. More healthy breakfast choices beyond fruit. Diet Sierra Mist!
  13. n/a
  14. N/A
  15. n/a
  16. network was good, projections were good
  17. Newbie Tutorial on important org's/sites, bio's on industry leaders
  18. None
  19. Perhaps put photos on the attendees list so it's easier to find people you want to catch up with but haven't met before. Perhaps also a list of their areas of expertise/experience on the attendees list? That'd be helpful for people from overseas and probably newcomers.
  20. Please consider moving the speakers further forward or further out to minimize feedback, along with a compressor/limiter to keep the P-pops and microphone thuds under control. There are commercial adaptive feedback filters that could help. Also, please consider video monitors in front of the stage, so that the presenters, and moreso the panel participants, don't have to look to the screens to verify where their slides are. How about a clock so folks know when their time is up, and/or a time buffer in each portion of the program for the inevitable overflow.
  21. Really well: the place & accommodations. To improve
  22. Sound system.
  23. The agenda mostly seemed to run to time, which was great, and it was excellent to have the agenda ready so far in advance. This needs to be kept up, as overrunning eats into coffee breaks which are valuable social networking time, and publishing the agenda late affects ability to get authorisation to attend.
  24. The rtsp feed was excellent. Windows Media, however, was poor throughout.
  25. The schedule came out in time. Move tutorials to Monday?
  26. well organized - good job! please double side copy this survey to save paper. thank you
  27. Wireless was very stable.
  28. wireless worked well as usual, great job by tony/kapela and associates
  29. Wireless worked well.
  30. worked well - network/wireless. improve: wireless access for free via hotel rooms
  31. Would be nice to have the conf broadcasted out into the break areas - as it is at arin meetings.

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

Answered question

30

(skipped this question)

96

  1. 1) Change management/control in provider networks 2) Automation of provisioning of DNS/web/network services
  2. A presentation about who is who in the community for newcomers and people like me. Who is Randy Bush, Who is Phillip Smith, etc.
  3. BCP38 implementation tutorials, experience from people who did implement it, studies on how much it will help. How to survive attacks on DNS. Botnets can send perfectly valid queries with the source address of real recursive servers. How do you stop that?
  4. Best pratice network services deployment.
  5. Big fonts on their presentations
  6. continue IPv6 transition emphasis
  7. DHCPv6, PI IPv6 address space. Dynamic update on AAAA records in DNS (challenges/pitfall)
  8. discussion of SOHO router/AP issues - get the vendors (Linksys, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, etc) here to listen and act PS how will they cope w/ IPv6 MOre on network instrumentation and analysis less on address allocation, routing is important but it shouldn't be all-consuming
  9. entire day aggregate of the 10m talks.
  10. ENUN & Signing of Root Zone DNS
  11. expand the lightening sessions, they seem to be more relevant to network operators than the main session.
  12. I'd like to see a workshop on issues around NOC operations, and NOC communication.
  13. more advanced BGP tutorials, mpls and metro ethernet presentations/tutorials
  14. more doom and gloom presos, maybe with what we should do
  15. More interactive labs or demonstrations
  16. More on security, 802.11ah (PBB, PBT)
  17. more ops presentations
  18. n/a
  19. N/A
  20. Network management systems and network best current practices for both v4 and v6
  21. no
  22. None
  23. per Dave Meyers, how about some economist's talks
  24. presentations such as "Integrating Networks" were useful
  25. Realities of peering - who should really expect to be able to peer to who. What to expect from a NOC? How to get the best results from your discussions with them.
  26. Several of the topics were "theory" presentation/proposals. I came expecting to get information on how others are effectively running their network.
  27. Social impacts of the Internet. Environmental impacts of the Internet
  28. todd underwood is always good, anything from the van jacobson.
  29. WiMax DIY metro fibre rural broadband
  30. Wi-max - lessons learned. 100G lead from IETF

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

Answered question

12

(skipped this question)

114

  1. Akamai
  2. Akamai
  3. All great, although several power issues.
  4. Cities near major areas; SJC, NYC, LAX, IAD
  5. n/a
  6. N/A
  7. n/a
  8. no
  9. None
  10. Stage out backup stores of cookies - no cookie land-rush!
  11. TorIX
  12. Try venues in southeast - Jacksonville, Savannah, Hilton Head, Orlando, Atlanta, RTP, New Orleans, Miami, Tampa

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

Answered question

11

(skipped this question)

115

  1. Afilias Canada Carriers
  2. Akamai
  3. Alcatel/Lucent
  4. bud girls
  5. Infinera
  6. Internap
  7. n/a
  8. N/a
  9. no
  10. None
  11. Oso Technologies are big in Albuquerque, yet totally unaware of NANOG/ARIN conferences

Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question

81

(skipped this question)

45

  1. 70% corridor conversations, 30% programme
  2. Academic reasons -
  3. As a co-speaker/author of presentation.
  4. because is good networking
  5. Because it was back to back with ARIN
  6. Because it's fun!
  7. benefit from the experience of others in similar positions
  8. Confidential
  9. easy access to meeting & material
  10. Exchange ideas with others in the industry.
  11. Exchange the info between ISP network operators and for networking purpose.
  12. Find out what current trends/info/hot topics are. find out new info on network management and monitoring, new protocol work, IPv6, etc. Meet people and discuss issues with people dealing with same set of challenges.
  13. First Time - to understand the issues which concern the network operators and to understand the organization of NANOG.
  14. for searching the networks or ISP Security issues
  15. For the view into other operator's experiences with similar scenarios to my organizations.
  16. General professional "networking" and getting our company name "out there"
  17. get current trend on industry
  18. Great sessions, even if not directly relevant to my work they make me think. Great people, interacting with most all the other smart people in the industry.
  19. hallways and afterhours networking. interesting presentations (many of em anyway). bofs.
  20. I am in research working on network mgt tools. Coming to NANOG helps me a big way with my research.
  21. I am starting to take a more active role in network operations and routing at my work
  22. I attend because of the humans. The information and skills of so many of the movers and shakers and the ones that designed, built and keep the internet functioning. This is nearly as good as Usenix :) in that respect. I also like the level of people that attend, rather than being focused on tutorials or certification classes, the subjects are by users for users, and almost always of value. and most - I come because I feel welcomed (thanks Carol!) and to get my spring wardrobe. :)
  23. I attend NANOG because I love to fill out surveys for the hallway conversations and the peering bOF
  24. I came to get information on how others are migrating & implementing IPv6.
  25. I meet extremely interesting and influential people in the networking world who for the most part are very willing to discuss and teach what they know to others who are in more of a learning mode.
  26. I work in an ISP.
  27. I'm here for the ARIN meeting and wanted to check out NANOG. Hope to be back in the future.
  28. Important to be involved at engineer level discussions.
  29. Interested in networking in general. Like meeting the people I communicate with and those that I see sending notes.
  30. largely for the inter-personal meetings, networking & connections
  31. learn network technology, how to fix problems, find people to use as resources or give help to, try to shop for better price for better resources
  32. Learning and social
  33. Maintain contact with others in the industry. Stay current with trends.
  34. meet and greet
  35. meet chiqcs
  36. Meet coworkers, peers, and customers.
  37. meet people, discuss important issues, forums
  38. meet-n-greet
  39. nanog women, they're hotties
  40. Networking and community information
  41. Networking with fellow and future peers
  42. peering
  43. Peering
  44. Peering (BOF + GPF), ARIN, education
  45. peering opportunities
  46. people networking, meeting peers/customers, education from presentations
  47. Presenter
  48. Sales and networking. On occasion learn something new.
  49. See and hear NANOG threads (email) and contributors in person. I find the anti-regulatory predominance immersion interesting but doubt its true impact.
  50. See if I can learn anything
  51. See what's new in my field. To see how others are solving problems we face. To meet folks in the networking field.
  52. social interactions
  53. social networking
  54. Social networking with colleages, meeting customers, meeting suppliers, other business meetings, and to hear some good talks.
  55. socialization
  56. Talk to the other attendees.
  57. Technical content and meeting people
  58. Technical presentations, social networking.
  59. The main reason is to discuss peering and network details/issues.
  60. this was my first - wanted to hear from the people behind the scenes instead of getting info from media -
  61. to attend tutorials and other plenary and interact with community
  62. to be informed
  63. To better understand what's happening in the North American market, as it's vastly different from the Australian market.
  64. to find out the current concerns.
  65. To gain an understanding of issuess facing ISPs & NSPs
  66. to get feedback on what we need to do in IETF
  67. to get ideas on establishing a Caribbean nog
  68. to hear current issues
  69. To learn about developments in the operational community, and to meet people who would otherwise be simply names in a "From:" field.
  70. To learn more about what is important and new research such as LISP
  71. To learn!!
  72. To meet our customers. To network (socially).
  73. to meet peers and other partners. To attend presentations to improve knowlegde
  74. to meet peers, recruit
  75. to meet with (potential) peers and customers
  76. to meet with other network providers
  77. to network and stay visible in the community
  78. To see our network relations.
  79. To see the status of ISP and the direction/problem areas they see coming.
  80. Was promoted to senior ops, and wanted to learn more from the community.
  81. wished i could have ben there in person, but webcast is a lifeline.

 

 

^ Back to Top