^ Top

NANOG 42 Survey Results

 

NANOG 42 Survey Results

San Jose, California (February 17-20, 2008)

How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent (Response Total)

in person in San Jose

93.1% (175)

via Web - Real Media

1.1% (2)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

1.1% (2)

via Web - Windows Media

4.8% (9)

Answered question

188

(skipped this question)

0

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

Yes

30.8% (57)

No

69.2% (128)

If you answered "No" please tell us how this NANOG compares to previous meetings.

1. This is great! Lots of people 
2. decent. good agenda & discussions 
3. livlier 
4. hard to say 
5. good turnout 
6. nicer hotel, better space & food - felt less crowded 
7. ok 
8. content? 
9. the agenda looked a bit lame compared to other NANOGs, but it turned out to be pretty good 
10. more people 
11. better 
12. more or less the same 
13. - 14. equal 
15. very good scheduling 
16. pretty good - better than usual 
17. last mtg was in Oakland in 2001, this one seems larger 
18. better 
19. more emphasis on social activities. good. top program 
20. liked evening events 
21. better organized overall 
22. biggest in recent memory 
23. Good 
24. well 
25. perhaps a bit more focus on layer 4-7(8) would be in order (security, DNS, policy) 
26. very good one 
27. good 
28. terrific content - very few blocks that I missed 
29. it was a bit better than the last NANOG I attended 
30. so-so, not best, not worst 
31. much larger attendees, better topics 
32. not quite vegas, but better than dallas 
33. facility-wise, better than last, content - better than last, network connectivity - worse than last 
34. presentation were slightly less interesting / of slightly lower technical quality 
35. Organisation good. Location fine 
36. This was fabulous! 
37. I was pleased by the content. It is tought o rate it having attended remotely as so much of NANOG is a personal presence. 
38. One of the best. 
39. 100% more useful, this year all the topics where interesting and useful 
40. too many to list 
41. better than usual 
42. Good turnout. 
43. I don't remember Lightning Talks at prior NANOG meetings I attended (long time ago!)...these were fun. 
44. Better facilities. Ballroom was great. Loads of space for everyone. 
45. Mostly better, still a bunch of things that just don't seem to get any better. 
46. - 47.Very well put together programme. I especially liked the Amazon keynote. Very interesting! 
48. Favorably 
49. Sessions moved along quicker it seemed, there was less Q&A it seems though. 
50. Better! 
51. - 52. This one rocked! Felt more like a RIPE meeting, actually. Good content, good social events, great people, good pacing. Love the later start, spread over three days, feels less like a marathon. 
53. Very well put together programme. I especially liked the Amazon keynote. Very interesting! 
54. it worked well for me to have the talks start later. 
55. - 57. Very well put together programme. I especially liked the Amazon keynote. Very interesting! 
58. much higher participation 
59. top 20% 
60. I liked this NANOG better. The Peering BOF was lots of fun - wish Bill had more time. 
61. Better 
62. Same 
63. Turnout was good, the food at beer and gear was the best I have had at a Nanog. 
64. very good program - better social events - very good 
65. Ipv6 hour sucked 
66. Excellent program. Props to Todd. 
67. about the same 
68. This was a great meeting; good number of attendees, great agenda. Scheduled socials were great, and loved the late start. 
69. better quality of content/talks in general; specifics below 
70. This was a well presented nanog 
71. more people 
72. better venue 
73. - 74. About the same. 
75. Very well. 
76. Good agenda. Good speakers both in the general session and BOFs.
77. Lots more people... :-) 
78. some pieces of the program better... power bof was a little shallow on techinical detail. 
79. It's huge. Other than that I find it about the same. 
80. About the same, maybe a little better 
81. More attendance 
82. This was my 2nd meeting, the fist being ABQ last October. Seems about the same (which is good).
83. Seemed like good content this time 
84. About the same. I am still enjoying it. 
85. This meeting was better than most I have attended--great attendance, great facility, relevant content. 
86. best ever :-) 
87. Good talks, the quality of the talks has been generally improving. The later start time provided extra time for handling overnight build-ups of email, make phonecalls, have meetings with associates in the hallways, or just network with other meeting attendees. Lunch was too squashed, but that shouldn't mean we go back to an earlier start, I think it's okay to run as late as 6/6.30pm in the evenings (with appropriate breaks), but please *don't* ever go back to holding BoFs and tutorials in the evening, I'm so glad we've moved on from that era. Good social networking opportunities and receptions at this meeting. 
88. It was about on-par 
89. Seems comparable in quality. 
90. Much better Content 
91. Good 
92. Better than ABQ - facilities were superior, especially for the Beer 'n' Gear, and the breaks were more enjoyable. 
93. Much larger 
94. not quite as intense; didn't like the late start considering we were on the west coast and time zones were wasted. A late start in NY might be ok. 
95. No big differences 
96. Better food, nice venue, better start time!

Answered question

185

(skipped this question)

3

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

29.7% (55)

Useful

67.6% (125)

No Opinion

1.6% (3)

Not Very Useful

1.1% (2)

Useless

0% (0)

Answered question

185

(skipped this question)

3

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

Yes

88.6% (164)

No

3.8% (7)

No Opinion

8.1% (15)

Answered question

185

(skipped this question)

3

For the next NANOG meeting, which of the following start times most suits your needs?

8:00am

1.1% (2)

8:30am

4.9% (9)

9:00am

33.9% (62)

9:30am

22.4% (41)

10:00am

53.0% (97)

Answered question

183

(skipped this question)

5

Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?

Yes

10.3% (19)

No

89.7% (165)

Answered question

184

(skipped this question)

4

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question

70

(skipped this question)

118

1. n/c 
2. did not attend - was @ security BoF 
3. interesting - I liked the openess 
4. MLC needs to allow for comments during presentation 
5. very nice - crisply done from a scheduling point of view. lots of good personality/humor 
6. boring 
7. didn't attend 
8. did not attend 
9. leave the belligerent drunk at home next time 
10. n/a 
11. room too small 
12. did not attend 
13. n/a 
14. DNA 
15. straight forward - well attended - nice save Jason! 
16. good, informational 
17. n/a 
18. did not attend 
19. didn't attend 
20. n/a 
21. Very useful. 
22. Boring 
23. Good that it was kept brief. 
24. didn't attend 
25. While I was unable to see most of it due to work schedule I very much enjoyed what I saw and was able to glean useful and valuable information in the time I was able to listen. The only thing that was a problem was glitches in the streaming media but I honestly don't know where the problem was at so it could have as easily been my problem only. 
26. It was fairly good, and informative. 
27. more crowded than usual 
28. Fine. 
29. N/A 
30. Interesting, worth the effort invested in running it. 
31. - 32. Interesting as always. 
33. Missed it - though I had planned to attend (meeting went long) 
34. Was OK. I'm not sure how to make stats more exciting. 
35. N/A 
36. N/A 
37. - 38. Community meeting was excellent, if a trifle less contentious and quiet this time around. I think that means we're honing in on how to make NANOG run the way everyone wants, which is good. 
39. Interesting as always. 
40. n/a 
41. - 43. Interesting as always. 
44. booooring. serve booze first 
45. - 47. Was funny, couldn't follow all insider jokes ;-) 
48. N/A 
49. NA 
50. Need more transparency from Merit 
51. Good 
52. Little engagement; all sectons seemed to fly through. 
53. well done; Pilosoft talk in particular was factual, concise, and following Q&A handled very diplomatically and appropriately 
54. buh 
55. Missed it. 
56. Rather boring this time. Covered the needed areas well, but no yelling and no fights. 
57. Very smooth. None of the hostility that plagued early meetings. The community seems to have accepted the governance and the overall direction that NANOG is taking. Transparency helps. 
58. Interesting, it's an active community 
59. presentations took to long, input was insufficiently solicited 
60. Did not attend. 
61. as a first timer, got me up to speed 
62. n/a 
63. Great Agenda! Love the 10am start, the vendor social events every night we're fantastic. Best conference in a long time 
64. Give NANOG a way to keep in touch with the regular people. 
65. Good. Brief. Didn't go on too long. 
66. I did not attend it from the beginning so I do not feel qualified to comment. 
67. Excellently done, relaxed atmosphere. 
68. I didn't know the minutes were posted. I didn't see a link on the web site. Is there one? 
69. As this being my first community meeting, I was truly surprised at the large turn-out. 
70. Did not attend

Comments on the Newcomers' Continental Breakfast

Answered question

68

(skipped this question)

120

1. n/c 
2. did not attend 
3. very good well proctored 
4. did not attend 
5. N/A 
6. very good 
7. NA 
8. too clubby. is this open to all? seems too political and whiny. 
9. nice idea, introductions were helpful, some materials next time also? 
10. too early 
11. n/a 
12. helpful. it had been 8 years since I was last at NANOG, and am here alone, so it provided some useful time to meet others. 
13. good & friendly 
14. ditto 
15. n/a 
16. DNA 
17. enjoyed meeting +75 new attendees, most at the breakfast mixer 
18. n/a 
19. Ren Rulz! 
20. wish I attended 
21. good, maybe a little more on what NANOG is & what people should get out of this 
22. good. would be nice to hear more about how NANOG works, rather than just intros 
23. good idea 
24. didn't attend 
25. n/a 
26. Ren did a great job. 
27. didn't attend or was I aware 
28. good to see a mixer for new folks 
29. Didnt go. 
30. N/A 
31. Being a european the breakfast in US doesnt impress me much :) 
32. N/A 
33. N/A 
34. N/A 
35. N/A 
36. - 37. Excellent! Helped break the ice, get people comfortable talking to old-timers, and pair up almost a "mentoring" situation. My first time attending it, I'll be sure to show up for future ones. 
38. n/a 
39. - 41. Good in General, but no microphones for the introductions, unfortunately. 
42. N/A 
43. NA 
44. Good initiavtive - make it more known to old timers that they can be present there too 
45. n/a 
46. n/a 
47. Great! Love the open seating and how 'old timers' spread themselves out. Had lots of good "what are your expectations" and mixer conversations. Truly engaged the new folks. Please do this again and do not do classroom seating! 
48. N/A 
49. N/A 
50. Didn't make it! Sorry! 
51. Did not attend (not newcomer) 
52. Well run (Ren) and I think provided an excellent starting point for new attendees. 
53. I enjoyed meeting the SC and PC members. These people knew "who" I should talk to about the questions I had. Hanging a link off the meeting pages with pictures of members would be helpful as well. 
54. - 56. Did not attend. 
57. open and friendly 
58. n/a 
59. Handy to have food out there and yet another time to network. 
60. put closer to the conference. 
61. Didn't attend. 
62. Useful event to meet the core participants of NANOG. 
63. Great 
64. No comment - there was not a distinction between newcomers or return attendees. I did not see any interaction between attendees and organizers, but simply people eating breakfast and surfing the net. 
65. I attended with new people from my company and I found it very welcoming and I really liked that everyone introduced themselves. It builds community. 
66. Good Ice breaker 
67. We really could have used some meat. 
68. Good

Comments on the General Sessions:

Answered question

60

(skipped this question)

128

1. loved the "power" discussions 
2. some very good presenters 
3. the energy track was a bit surprising - but interesting! 
4. Renesys presentation too much like a sales pitch for Renesys Paul Ferguson needed to talk much less, allow more question time. 
5. very good 
6. was hard to understand some of the speakers & questions due to sound quality - not all speakers were enunciating well or proper/consistent distance from microphone 
7. good! 
8. 1) most talks ill-prepared (on Monday) except the PG&E & Google earth 2) Tuesday was better 
9. excellent! great large room Power! Tables! 
10. pretty good 
11. n/a 
12. very informative as always 
13. good themes 
14. loved the panels 
15. energy, green presentations surprisingly interesting/relevant/important 
16. good 
17. enough interesting topics. thanks! 
18. very good 
19. great speakers/content 
20. good. lightening talks are nice improvement 
21. panel discussions are great! 
22. Well organised as usual, and some even interesting enough to make it worth looking up from email 
23. Overall pretty nice I think 
24. The Green Data center panel was disappointing- little to zero operational knowledge imparted. 
25. They were interesting. The only thing that occasionally bothered me is Cisco's vendor-specific technology talks. 
26. panels are great 
27. Renesys preso on fiber cuts was outstanding, like any other Renesys preso. The presentation on optics was also terrific. 
28. All good. 
29. Later start times and better scheduling of the good presentations 
30. I work mainly with security, and i think it lacked a lot within that area. But i understand its a big crowd so have to cover "all" 
31. To the PC: introduce yourselves, and seriously can we please keep presenters on schedule? Maybe put some "built-in holds" into the launch sequence like NASA does, or otherwise stick to the schedule. 
32. Good program this time. 
33. especially liked the topic on power and green data centers. would like more topics about issues like this that affect our business, also regulatory updates, maybe from areas outside NA too since many of us are global. 
34. - 35. Very good content, good speakers, no major technical hiccups; kudos all around. I like the shorter, 3-per lightning talks format as well, breaks them up well. 
36. good topics and speakers 
37. Some were a bit to high level. Need some more meat. 
38. ISP's and P2P was quite good and useful The two energy efficiency ones were the best of the conference. The law enforcement one was not very good. The PTR query analysis was good. 
39. Generally good subjects 
40. Quality uneven. 
41. Great 
42. several lightning talks deserved to be full presentations. Loved the agenda. 
43. content above average; particularly good were Tom Scholl and Richard Steenbergen, PG&E representation on datacenter panel 
44. didn't go 
45. Lunch needs to be half hour longer 
46. Generally good 
47. The power / efficiency panel was very useful. The 100GbE panel was useful. Vendors need to get moving on 100GbE and one thing I got out of the panel is that some vendors making noise are not far along. Most of the lightning talks were very good. Not so good was the shrinking FIB talk (real bad idea IM(NS)HO). Haven't seen Wed lightning talks - they look interesting. Looking forward to the IPv6 hour review / summary. 
48. The new start time was fantastic! I managed to get meetings in before the general session in each day. 
49. Very good programme 
50. I found them generally informative. 
51. good mix of topics 
52. woot 
53. About the same as previous nanogs. 
54. Good quality 
55. Good range of talks, and of a generally high-standard. 
56. The general session presentations on outages caused by natural disaster were very interesting. The presentations on the future of hardware for line cards etc was dry, but interesting. The presentation on green data centers was not applicable for me. 
57. Informative. however, there was far too much plugging going on on the Monday session. 
58. Good content 
59. I thought the session on Green data centers was extremely enlightening and informational, and highlighted the strain being placed on data center resources and the steps being taken to alleviate the strain. 
60. Nice selection of topics

Was the Keynote Speaker address of value?

Answered question

100

(skipped this question)

88

1. yes 
2. yes 
3. yes 
4. ok 
5. Yes. Amazon talk was very informative. 
6. yes 
7. yes, liked the dual speakers (Admin/Tech) format 
8. yes 
9. not to me 
10. no 
11. definitely! 
12. yes 
13. yes - very interesting 
14. no 
15. sure 
16. loved Amazons preso 
17. yes 
18. Yes! 
19. yes - I rather enjoyed the keynote 
20. yes 
21. yes, interesting to hear of issues faced by huge e-commerce site (amazon) 
22. yes 
23. yes, at the Q&A phase most of all 
24. yes 
25. amazon presentation was good 
26. yes. I liked it alot 
27. yes! 
28. yes 
29. yes - very interesting... 
30. yes 
31. yes 
32. yes 
33. very much 
34. yes 
35. yes 
36. yes 
37. Yes 
38. Yes. 
39. Yes. More please. 
40. yes 
41. yes, kudos to Amazon for their willingness to participate 
42. Not at all. I'm not sure what made it keynote worthy because Amazons story is no different than any other large network. It seemed more like an exhibition of Amazon talking up their network and infrastructure without adding any substance to the talk. It seemed totally worthless. To compare, the "keynote" that Len Bosack gave was by far one of the best I have ever heard. Thats what we need more of, Len, Tony Li and other folks who can share clueful knowledge and thoughts on the future rather than Amazon quoting statements and showing individuals photographs. Put simply, Vijay Gills GPF presentation on datacenters, networks and general scaling is 100 times better than this empty, buzzword filled and dry presentation from Amazon. 
43. Yes. I thought it was interesting...I feel that a good keynote address is thought-provoking and this one was. 
44. No 
45. Poor presentation skills but good content. 
46. - 47. Very much so. i'd like to see more interesting keynotes like this, if possible. 
48. Yes - very interesting. 
49. Missed it but the slides looked interesting. 
50. very much 
51. -52. Very, very much so 
53. - 54. Totally--excellent work, Josh, in tracking them down and getting them to speak. 
55. Very much so. i'd like to see more interesting keynotes like this, if possible. 
56. very interesting to heave about amazon.com's network data center automation. 
57. - 59. Very much so. i'd like to see more interesting keynotes like this, if possible. 
60. yes, for once 
61. Yes -- very good. 
62. Did not seem like a keynote to me. 
63. Yes, very interesting 
64. Yes. 
65. Yes. Thought it was very interesting and entertaining. 
66. yes 
67. yes. let's have more of these, actually someone who done something in past 10 years. 
68. Yes, keynote is good. We are all technologists, bring our heads out of our notebooks. 
69. no more so than any other speaker 
70. Yes. Best keynote so far. Very very cool. 
71. not so much 
72. Yes, it was interesting getting to hear a content provider as opposed to a network provider. 
73. see above 
74. There were definitely some interesting ideas that I gleaned from the talk. 
75. no 
76. very good 
77. Yes. I would like to continue seeing Keynotes at future NANOGs 
78. Yes 
79. Outstanding! Lots of favorable comments. It will be had to keep keynotes at this level, but let's try. 
80. Very interesting and of some value. A good choice of keynote. Not great but hard to find anything better. Always good to hear from Amazon, Google, Yahoo, other content providers when they have a something content rich to present. 
81. Yes 
82. it was ok, slightly light 
83. Yes. 
84. It was interesting, but more about server-side than network 
85. Yes. It was good to hear about Amazon's scale and automation. 
86. I liked the keynote speaker and the presentation while slightly content-free it did cover some interesting ideas and problems. 
87. decent 
88. n/a 
89. Yes 
90. Yes! 
91. yes. fantastic. 
92. Yes. 
93. Yes. This was probably one of the better keynotes we've had. Lots of technical detail at a company that doesn't sell internet service, but is totally enabled by IP networking, and likely wouldn't exist without it. 
94. Keynote address was an interesting topic delivered in a very boring fashion. It would have been more useful if they had delved more deeply into the case study about the New York times application used Amazon's resources. 
95. Definitely - it gave insight in how situations can be greatly simplified in complex environments. 
96. Yes. 
97. Not much. 
98. less than I expected. 
99. Yes, very interesting 
100. Yes, very much

Comments on the Tutorials: (Please reference the tutorial(s) you are commenting on)

Answered question

57

(skipped this question)

131

1. n/c 
2. L2 Troubleshooting & hordning good. 
3. BGP Troubleshooting 
4. IPv6 was very good. troubleshooting was good but could be a bit tighter, est. beginning was a bit chatty 
5. L2 Security was excellent 
6. zwicky - problem solving - very good ISP Security - good 
7. BGP Troubleshooting - excellent 
8. good stuff 
9. n/a 
10. learned new tricks as always 
11. Zwicky's theme should be expanded 
12. problem solving, BGP. would've liked to attend the IPv6 Tutorial before IPv6 hour 
13. troubleshooting should not have overlaped L2 attacks 
14. LL Security looked like a rehash of slides that have been on the web for years... show cisco still builds vulnerabilities by default 
15. small operator lessons learned was interesting 
16. layer2 & core security were very good 
17. Tutorials on Sunday - Good but wanted to attend two set at the same time. consider two sessions of popular ones... wanted both BGP & Layer2 (and teaching troubleshooting) 
18. I attended BGP tutorial and every session on IP-MPLS load balancing. Both of them are very informative. 
19. BGP: put some real cases in omitting references 
20. The layer 2 security tutorial was interesting, and it gave me an insight into what I should be looking for on my corporate network. Most of it was just general information, a bit too general. 
21. only attended L2 Mitigation 
22. N/A 
23. L2 Mitigation of attacks the first day was decent 
24. N/A 
25. - 26. I liked the Cisco ipv6 tutorial, though unfortunately I could only read the PDF, this was not recorded nor webcasted. 
27. n/a 
28. So long as the intent was to present the topics to neophytes, they were good. Otherwise, most were fairly elementary. 
29. Teaching troubleshooting was very good -- relevant, useful Small operator lessons learned seemed scattered and wasn't what I expected. 
30. - 32. BGP Troubleshooting was outstanding, thank you very much. 
33. N/A 
34. NA 
35. Philip is excellent as always. 
36. The troubleshooting tutorial was great, we should ask her to do this again in Brooklyn and get more people to attend. 
37. n/a 
38. Teaching troubleshooting was cool. Please continue 'non-traditional' type talks/bofs/sessions, maybe also: game theory; higher level 'maths' which are core to networking; inter-organization expectations; communication/clarity; etc etc. 
39. N/A 
40. no go 
41. didn't go to any 
42. Did not attend. 
43. BGP both versions. Maybe specific case studies. 
44. L2 Attacks + Core Infrastructure: excellent. 
45. l2 security tutorial should have said (for cisco) in to the title 
46. I was in the room during the IPv6 one and what I overheard sounded interesting. 
47. BGP troubleshooting tutorial on sunday was great 
48. a little bit light 
49. n/a 
50. Liked the Cisco tutorial on Core networks--well presented and informative--lots to think about. 
51. Elizabeth Zwicky: It took me a while to get the point of her tutorial, but once I did I found it quite interesting. Pete Templin: We need more stuff like this. I'd especially like to here from people who solve similar problems in different ways, and from data center folks. 
52. Keep the BGP tutorials--very useful! 
53. Didn't attend any, we've crept back into using too much of Sunday afternoon, and I didn't arrive until about 4pm on Sunday. 
54. The security tutorial on link layer security was useful, but the topics did seem redundant. Good port security would stop the great majority of attacks that involved the injection of ARPs. 
55. Possibly better at 1.5h, attended Sunday L2 security and core security best practices. 
56. Please ask Cisco to update their BGP talk that they recycle ever nanog. There are certainly some new features they ignore like BDF. Also some tips on Interoperability with other vendors. They don't talk about BGP timers between vendors which is a big issue for convergence. 
57. Did not attend

Comments on the BoFs: (Please reference the BoF(s) you are commenting on)

Answered question

61

(skipped this question)

127

1. Peering BoF was particularly engaging 
2. security BoF - needs more time IX Bof - Good Presos Well attended 
3. Problem Solving - needs better organization in 1st half - good topic! Security BoF - well chosen set of updates ARIN BoF - would have been nice to have scheduled in time for (??? - could not read writing) 
4. NA 
5. security BoF was pretty good 
6. peering bof was informative 
7. ARIN Ipv4 transfer policy BoF/Tutorial - great idea, and it worked out well. Say thank you to Owen! 
8. good stuff 
9. ISP Security: Better than usual 
10. first time for Peering BoF. VERY informative. 
11. scheduling ARIN AC BoF against peering BoF was not good 
12. peering bof was a hit! 
13. peering. though provoking 
14. nice to see some new content in peering bof finally 
15. peering bof a+++ 
16. IXP BoF was useful 
17. IX Ops panel very interesting, lets make this regular 
18. Peering BoF excellent, as usual. 
19. IX: rather poor 
20. The IX operator session is a good idea, but it appeared to be the Equinix marketing hour... 4 out of 6 presentations were theirs, while there were at least a half dozen other IX operators in the room 
21. The peering BoF was quite enjoyable. Not only was it informative, it was entertaining. 
22. peering bof well run, prepared - good debate 
23. love the peering forum 
24. Peering BOF is becoming a repeat of the same thing over and over. Would like to see: -IP Transit purchasing BOF -Rundown of Internet Exchange facilities and major colos across the world. Outline issues currently being experienced (power, remote hands, fiber and space). -Have the BOF ran by a neutral party (not equinix). How come Bellevue NANOG we talked about local colos, but we didnt mention any at this NANOG where there are several facilities in close proximity. Bill Norton cannot continue to perform these as he also wears an Equinix hat. 
25. IX Operator and Peering BoFs were interesting to me but mostly as an observer trying to learn more about operations (I'm in engineering at a vendor). 
26. Peering bof was terrible, very boring 
27. Security BoF was really good. Should perhaps have more time and be better planned next time. but the idea behind it is great! 
28. Peering BOF was good, but again, keep it to schedule, or make it a double-length BOF. And I'm sorry that Bill is no longer on the PC, but it's WRONG for him to bring in content that belongs in the general session (or if by chance the PC got to preview it, wrong to let it go to the Peering BOF without being shown in the general session). Bill does a good presentation, but perhaps someone else should be the overall moderator. And a staff should be assigned to manage the microphones. 
29. Peering BOF gets bigger every time. Would like to see some new people sharing their views (see a lot of the same people) 
30. IX Operator and Peering were great. We need to continue the Peering BoF. 
31. - 32. IX Operator BOF was informative as always; could have been a slightly longer block of time for it. Peering BOF was packed!! I think Bill's gonna need bigger and bigger rooms for his future BOFs. 
33. n/a 
34. IX Operators BOF was a great addition, this needs to happen as often as possible I believe. Its great to try and coordinate continuity across operators, as well as participants. A large issue for the not so distance future I feel will be jumbo frames 
35. ISP Security BoF was mediocre The IPv4 exhaustion BoF was good and useful 
36. Peering BOF was great. Very lively - good discussions. Keep em coming 
37. Peering BOF great as usual 
38. - 40. Peering BoF was good! 
41. Good discussions, especially peering BOF. 
42. Peering Bof was good, but a good thing to do would based on surveys taken in the past to use some of the data and create a better argument for when/if peering makes sense. 
43. IX bof was well attended. peering BOF was plenary-worthy what with its own full agenda, multiple slide decks, videos, presenters, etc. 
44. peering was below-average; Bill was obviously trying to kill time with uninteresting filler content and jokes done in poor taste (Peter Cohen/Sprint). additionally, slides from the peering BoF are not often published, and really should be. 
45. peering and ix good 
46. The Peering BOF was as fun as usual. 
47. Peering BoF excellent!! Make it longer :) 
48. Peering BOF was fantastic as always, more time would have been well used 
49. The peering BOF should be "shaken up". There should be three of four main topics and more discussions rather than just presentations. Don't get me wrong presentations are great however there should be some discussions. 
50. The Peering BOF was very useful 
51. Unfortunate that IPv4 runout BoF conflicted with Peering BoF, but, I do appreciate NANOG PC scheduling the IPv4 runout BoF. For next NANOG, I'll try and get something organized more in advance for this topic. 
52. IX BOF was very well run and informative. 
53. IX Operators + Peering: very useful. More. 
54. I attended the IX BoF and found it interesting enough. 
55. enjoyed IX operators BOF 
56. Great as usual. My favorite part of nanog. 
57. Good BoF schedule, and I understand that some people felt spoiled for choice - people weren't sure which BoF to attend. 
58. BoF session on small ISP operations lessons-learned was good primer on what goes wrong as you grown your network. Good information for a non-operator. 
59. I really wanted to attend the security BOF but had to chose another. Can you record the Security BOF and just distribute it locally (for security reason) 
60. Interesting IX BoF 
61. IX BoF was good

Did you attempt to connect to the nanog-v6 SSID during the IPv6 Hour or at other times during the meeting?

Yes

70.5% (117)

No

29.5% (49)

If no, why not?

1. system not recommended 
2. worked fine 
3. Too many issues to need to use net for 1 hour 
4. used v6 and xp-v6 extensively 
5. v6 is broke. we all know that. 
6. no winxp support 
7. no time 
8. no v6 
9. XP v6 sucks 
10. not v6 capable 
11. needed admin rights on corporate laptop to tinker 
12. no interest 
13. could not get a gateway address 
14. I have a winXP laptop installed by my corporate IT. wasn't worth it. 
15. lazy 
16. not useful 
17. didn't work... gave up 
18. using NASA machine that doesn't have sys admin privileges on it 
19. much better success NOT during IPv6 hour 
20. Lets do it at each NANOG! 
21. need access to VPN. VPN client is not IPv6 capable 
22. busy with other meetings. 
23. IPv4 works just fine, thank you very much. 
24. corporate laptop - didn't want to muck with it 
25. Didnt feel like it.. 
26. What little I learned from Jordi Palet's joke of an IPv6 session in LA was that IPv6 is a chore at best on Win2k. 
27. - 28. Unfortunately competition for resources meant I wasn't able to actually use the network, even though I was successfully connected. 
29. Didn't feel like trying to make it work. 
30. N/A 
31. N/A 
32. Unfortunately competition for resources meant I wasn't able to actually use the network, even though I was successfully connected. 
33. i didn't attend in person 
34. - 36. Unfortunately competition for resources meant I wasn't able to actually use the network, even though I was successfully connected. 
37. Couldn't be bothered. I have a windows box and prefer to avoid the frustration associated with it. 
38. worked surprisingly well 
39. Yes. Did not work. 
40. Because there was no other connectivity and it's important I stay connected during the meeting. 
41. our transit providers back home, all represented at this conference, support v6 poorly or not at all. 
42. Laptop does not have IPV6 
43. see a few comments above 
44. couldn't work it out! 
45. issues...... 
46. Compiled IPv6 out of my FreeBSD kernel a long time ago. Dual boot and windoze xp refused to recognize the wireless at all. The latter was clearly a problem with the IBM/Levono wireless code being used. I can't tell if it was the multiple SSIDs or it barfed on something related IPv6 but it just hung. Randy had a good idea - XP is buggy, Vista has problems, get a MAC. 
47. Great idea, successful overall. 
48. With Ubuntu 7.10: had to disable Network Manager, then use iwconfig and put the IPv6 DNS server in resolv.conf by hand. Downloaded WIDE DHCPv6 but apparently wouldn't work. 
49. Out for lunch with vendor 
50. lazy 
51. Remote attendance 
52. I tried and its works at the office but not here. OS OSX 10.4.11 
53. There is no real v6 content available on the internet at this time. Connecting to a v6 SSID simply places my connection behind a v6<->v4 gateway. 
54. I can go an hour without my fix. 
55. Filled out the survey before the IPv6 hour. I will though

Answered question

166

(skipped this question)

22

What was your experience during the IPv6 Hour when IPv4 routing was unavailable? Please comment, listing what worked and what did not.

1. n/c 
2. seems IPv6 netowrk, in terms of L3 Routing, works fine. DNS is fine, too when you query AAAA. The problem is... when you enter a URL to the address bar in the browser. I tried firefox & safari using MAC OSX Tiger, it queries A other & tried to reach IPv4 contents. I had to specify IPv6 address to get IPv6 contents like http://[zool=xx:x] 
3. obvious services like MSN Messenger don't work NAT-PT obviously needs scalability work 
4. I went to www.ipv6.org there I went to "servers" link & cruised around "go6.net" "www.ist-ipv6.org
5. peachy - used xp-v6 and once NAT-PT got fixed then life was good 
6. need help to connect to nanog-6-xp. then it worked but was very slow. could connect to google but not gmail. couldn't connect to my corp. vpn (a good thing, I suppose!) 
7. apart from the 10 first minutes everything worked 
8. NAT-PT is just broken - DNS ALG breaks stack IPv6 worked fine 
9. NAT-PT did not funtion. could not resolve/connect to IPv4 addresses. 
10. NAT-PT was intermittent at first, but worked well in the end. (I have some IPv6 on my network so I had some access to resources even w/o NAT-PT.) 
11. could not get to v4 sites. listing of v6 sites would've been helpful 
12. I was talking! 
13. n/a 
14. could not get v6 or v4 connection from XP during this hour. 
15. xp user, nothing worked. received IPv4 address via DHCP but no GW. could ping to DNS server but no resolution occured 
16. broken laptop at that particular time 
17. NAT-PT did not work for me at all. IPv6 worked but I had to manually configure DNS. Please use DHCPv6 at NANOG43 
18. rants from the audience were entertaining felt bad for renesys speaker 
19. n/a 
20. not dog food - more like kitty-bars! :) 
21. left 
22. looked at static content & watched presentations. and filled out this form. Then I connected w/ v4 via my cell phone. 
23. slow but working 
24. latency was horrible, router apparently overloaded, v4 sites often not reachable due to that but my network is fully v6-capable anyway. 
25. mac osx 10.4 no dns AAAA to most sites, therefore: no mail, web news, ssh, etc. understandably non-functional until v6 is more widely used. 
26. it mostly DIDN'T work well. too short timeouts for ssh sessions. died at end of ipv6 hour. 
27. most everything I tried worked once NAT-PT was fixed... DHCPv6 didn't set DNS on Vista & had to "disable" IPv4 completely 
28. used blackberry and watched talk 
29. evdo 4tw 
30. norton internet security, firewall function blocked ipv6. when i switched it off, ipv6 works well. need more investigation 
31. didn't attend 
32. IPv6 was working, NAT-PT after some minutes * finally worked around 12:40 VPN was not working (IKE negotiation failed) 
33. did not run v6 v6 hour is very good idea though 
34. v6inter 7.10 - couldn't get a DHCP response although its supposed to support v6 
35. xp didn't work for me :( 
36. could get to v6 sites, but not v4 - had full functionality the previous day 
37. No IPsec VPN client functionality (client not v6) everything else worked... ssh, http(s), dns 
38. couldn't get out, user error since I didn't check the settings on my pc prior to IPv4 being shut off 
39. my laptop (xp) was able to configure v6 address and ???(could not read writing) but no DNA IPv6 address. Then it was not operational. My internet connection did not work. 
40. did not set up my v6 DNS resolvers before the hour, could not access the information during the hour to set them up 
41. No connectivity at all. Probably the fault of the network connection manager under Linux. 
42. I was working on specific content development for another meeting. All those sites were v6 accessible. The only thing that didn't work for me was my vpn access to my company, so i couldn't get e-mail. 
43. After they got some general problems worked out with DNS and NAT-PT, things worked pretty well for me. Web/Firefox - fine. SSH back to a bunch of places - fine. Jabber - fine. VPN client - no go. AIM - no go. VPN client the biggest issue. I use Mac OS X 10.5.1. 
44. went to IPv4 island... 
45. I boycotted this hour and went to PAIX for a site tour 
46. I had everything working except NAT-PT, but that didn't matter because I VPN'd right up. 
47. amused by rants of those around me 
48. My XP would not do "add protocol IPv6", kept getting a vague error from Windows refusing to install it. 
49. Aside from issues with the scaling of the NAT-PT device, stuff mostly worked. I noted issues with Firefox and Thunderbird AAAA record usage in the wiki. Connecting to my home machines (which are all dual-stack) was seamless. I needed the Juniper VPN client to connect to machines at ${ORKPLACE}, and this failed (not a huge surprise). 
50. Native v6 worked fine, nat-pt was cutting in and out 
51. Was ok once I figured out what to setup correctly. So worked for me. 
52. I punted to my Cingular card and stayed in the IPv4 world. I knew Win2k would be a pain. 
53. When v6 routing to v4 sites was working, the only issue I had was some odd behaviour from Apple iChat. It complained that my network was not configured at all. I seemed as if it was looking for a v4 network configuration, which I had explicitly disabled on my laptop, and giving up before trying v6. 
54. When v6 routing to v4 sites was working, the only issue I had was some odd behaviour from Apple iChat. It complained that my network was not configured at all. I seemed as if it was looking for a v4 network configuration, which I had explicitly disabled on my laptop, and giving up before trying v6. 
55. Poor. Got IP address, could resolve DNS, but couldn't get anywhere. 
56. I had to talk to people in person. 
57. - 58. It sucked. I usually proxy all my connections through SSH tunnels, and SSH didn't work through the NAT-PT gateway, so I was offline during the hour for the most part. Also, Gmail main page worked, but sending email to nanog always hung; not NANOG issue, but points out content providers need to be IPv6 aware when writing code. 
59. When v6 routing to v4 sites was working, the only issue I had was some odd behaviour from Apple iChat. It complained that my network was not configured at all. I seemed as if it was looking for a v4 network configuration, which I had explicitly disabled on my laptop, and giving up before trying v6. 
60. i didn't attempt to stream webcast during ipv6 hour 
61. - 63. When v6 routing to v4 sites was working, the only issue I had was some odd behaviour from Apple iChat. It complained that my network was not configured at all. I seemed as if it was looking for a v4 network configuration, which I had explicitly disabled on my laptop, and giving up before trying v6. 
64. NAT-PT wasnt working all too reliably. 
65. mozilla painful, i.e. apps level. transport worked. 
66. I had limited functionality, but was able to tunnel through SSH to do what I needed to do. Not much content and none of my work resources were directly available via IPv6. It was still a very useful exercise to get everyone to try it and learn more about it, and hopefully it helped the people organizing it to get more knowledge and experience that can be shared. 
67. Can get help to figure out what to do when the net is down. 
68. nat-pt did not work consistently, it was a great learning opportunity 
69. - 71. IPv4 Websites worked, other services like IPv4 SSH or Skype not. Showed me that we need to go a long way on IPv6. 
72. It was a complete failure.... 
73. Had acces to IRC - very important did not have access to mail - was not nice 
74. Simply unacceptable to completely shut off V6 
75. Forgot to enable windows IPv6, so didn't work. Fortunately, there are always EVDO cards. i think ipv6 hour is a great idea, people who have to have operational internet 24/7 will have evdo anyway, but everyone will *try* ipv6. 
76. n/a 
77. The NAT-PT seemed completely broken, there was no ipv6 to ipv4 connectivity, making things quite useless. 
78. only low-level stuff worked (dns, ping, traceroute, etc) for me. most applications were confused (A and AAAA got browsers in a tizzy, ppp-based vpn was flustered, etc). 
79. used Verizon Wireless (EVDO Rev-A) service on laptop and "dual stacked" between that and conference room v6 wireless. worked pretty well! 
80. It would have been nice to have a warning that the IPV4 network was going down so I could have made sure nothing important was going to be broken. Just an announcement 5 minutes ahead of the IPV6 hour would be really nice 
81. When no one was around, it seemed to work. When everyone started to show up, I was never able to do anything more than ping the gateway IP, so it was functionally useless. I heard the comment from Randy that the NAT-PT server that they had setup was good for about four users. Why even do the experiment with 500 people if you know that you are not going to be able to handle the load. 
82. Managed to continue to read my email! 
83. My XP laptop was not cooperating. 
84. not great..... 
85. Running Windows XP with SP2. I connected to nanog-xp-v6. I was able to connect, but not hit the Internet. A wireshark packet capture shows DNS working correctly. Initial TCP SYN packets went out to http://www.google.com/ , but nothing ever came back. 
86. At first, it was bad. Later, most things except ICMP and iChat worked. Of the two, ICMP was the worst problem. 
87. Native IPv6 was fine. NAT-PT worked poorly when I tried (early in the hour). Was not expecting the standard SSIDs to turn off. I had multiple ssh sessions running over IPv6 that died when my IP address changed and again at the end of the hour. (Why did the SSID disappear for a while?) 
88. Out to a business lunch. Unfortunately. Talks were good during that hour based on reading the slides. 
89. Getting back AAAA records BUT not being able to route to the address was a show stopper for me. 
90. I'm fairly certain that IPv6 worked just fine, however the Microsoft IPv6 stack prevented me from actually validating that assumption. 
91. Firefox (2.0.0.12) and Thunderbird (2.0.0.6) worked. So did SSH. Pidgin and Skype wouldn't work either. Tried Google Earth, KO too. 
92. few things worked 
93. Worked: ssh, firefox 2 (after telling it to resolve ipv6), firefox 3b3, safari, thunderbird (after telling it to resolve ipv6), adium (gtalk only) Didn't Work: openvpn, adium (aim and yim) I didn't have time to figure out what was going on with adium and if I could resolve it. I found a patch for openvpn, but didn't have a v6 server to test against. Note: this solution does not address automatic route adds, etc. so it is incomplete. 
94. Tried for the first half hour and was able to get ipv6 DNS resolution, but not reach anything. I gave up around halfway through, and later learned that that was about when they fixed it. It would have been nice if there was an announcement that things are fixed and we should try again... 
95. Using v6-xp SSID, I was able to get to v6 resources as I expected with my XP laptop (ssh, web, etc to v6 native services worked fine). After NAT-PT was "fixed" at 12:45 it was just like being behind a V4 NAT (that is, everything worked amazingly well). I only use ssh, http, ssl, DNS from my latop (no funky VPN, email, IM setups), so that may explain why I had few problems getting to what I normally get to. 
96. General web browsing to IPv4 sites worked fine. IPSEC VPN did not work through the NAT-PT. 
97. It seems that the NAT-PT device had issues... it seemed to die under load? 
98. Crappy. I could get almost nowhere sine 6 to 4 gateway was down/disabled. 
99. I was able to get an address, a DNS server, and a gateway, however, I could not communicate beyond the gateway. 
100. I found that the V4 experience did not work, and that the V6 experience did not work reliably. 
101. Once NAT-PT started working around 12:30, most things seemed to work. Stuff that didn't: - AIM (though Yahoo IM and Jabber worked fine.) - Aventail SSL-VPN, using their client software on the MAC (it doesn't seem to know how to make IPv6 connections.) 
102. couldn't get v6 to work at all on ubuntu 
103. IPv6 native sites could be reliably accessed using XP during the v6 hour, on the network with the v4 DNS crutch. However, no access to the v4 world was available through the nat-pt gateway. 
104. I attempted to use the IPv6 SSID during the first 1/2 hour of the session. I then stopped attempting to use it pay attention to the presenters, and thus was not able to judge the performance of the network once it came up. 
105. Nameservice was the biggest issue. Using a Mac, I was able to get an address and connectivity quickly, but neither of the nameservers answered. Approximately 10-15 minutes into the hour, they started answering. Was this a result of some fix on the nameservers themselves? Without a test to verify (e.g., "To verify connectivity, ping6 the DNS server; to verify nameservice, you should be able to lookup foo.nanog.net to be <insert IPv6 address>"), I was unable to determine whether the problem was a local or remote configuration issue. That being said, the information posted to the wiki was good. Using that, I was able to set up connectivity (and get firefox happy) with little effort. 
106. Prior to v6 hour working on the v6-only network (with XP) was very easy. Installed, connected, browsed. Didn't do significant testing or troubleshooting of apps. Opera worked (apparently) fine and Trillian couldn't connect. 
107. The diagnostics on the Mac didn't work for v6 like the do for v4. Since the Mac needed a manually defined DNS then it should have been posted up the Mac information as well as the PC info. 
108. Worked offline 
109. I was not able to ping the ipv4 gateway so I was not able to connect to any ipv4 services. Access to kame.net was available though. 
110. TBD 
111. so far, I haven't been able to get a browser to work with XP. 
112. It is very buggy - Just getting it running on a Mac seemed to be a very unreliable process. 
113. We'll find out in a few hours

Answered question

113

(skipped this question)

75

Should a "v6-only" SSID be provided at future NANOG meetings?

Yes

89.0% (138)

No

11.0% (17)

Comments:

1. I wanna try this again to see if it improves... 
2. don't care 
3. you DO want attendees, right? 
4. don't care 
5. yes, needs more testing in a large-scale environment 
6. sure - try again 
7. yes, to continue to flush out problems. 
8. We are thinking of a v6 hour each day at RIPE. 
9. The more we do this the more things will get fixed. 
10. Was a good exercise. 
11. I don't care 
12. Yes, yes and yes so we can get more feedback and toy with it to make sure this pushed everyone in the right direction. 
13. It'd be quite useful. 
14. Just run dual stack. 
15. - 16. Keeep pushing the dogfood, it's the best way for us to improve. 
17. Given the results, I might actually give it a try next time. 
18. Good experience for working with v6 
19. Sure why not 
20. - 22. To be forced for 1 hour was helpful, however I would have appreciated to have it later in the day because morning hours are important for European based attendants for business. So such lab sessions should be later. 
23. I'm really pissed off about the v6 hour. 
24. Needed for evolution... 
25. It's fine to have a sandbox to play in, but lets try to provide connectivity for the entire meeting for folks who may actually need it. 
26. ... only if there is sufficient capacity for the users that are present. 
27. Excellent opportunity for experimentation 
28. However it shouldn't be the only one. 
29. I'll recompile FreeBSD with V6 in it and have a try at it next time. A few years ago I wanted to play with IPv6 at home and couldn't get address space and someone to tunnel to with minimal effort and no exchange of money for the address space so I deferred that. 
30. I could not tell if NAT-PT was on the whole time for this network. Doing this might allow for better stat tracking and/or transition to v6 only hour... instead of suddenly sending all 100s of us to the poor little NAT-PT box. 
31. It's good to test this more and more. 
32. v6 only is not instructive vs v6+legacy services 
33. Good times, good practice. 
34. with proper/capable nat-pt please :) 
35. We learned a lot from this. 
36. Assuming the infrastructure continues to exist, I think it's a useful learning and testing environment. 
37. but do not turn off the actual interenet 
38. This allows continued experimentation with v6, nat-pt, and all other necessary evil hacks against the wide range of hardware attendees bring to NANOG meetings, but on a voluntary basis, which should be the preference. 
39. It is useful to make the NANOG participants figure out how to use IPv6. 
40. Testing is cleaner without v4 on the same network. 
41. There should be a list of applications that don't work like Firefox. 
42. As long as Internet access to IPV4 services is available

Answered question

155

(skipped this question)

33

Was the IPv6 Hour useful, and should it be repeated?

Yes

84.6% (121)

No

15.4% (22)

Comments:

1. not sure if it has to be IPv6 "only" hour. 
2. should be longer than an hour. 
3. should be brought to all other networking events like interop! 
4. conference should have had a local www mirror of www.nanog.org 
5. I think we all learned a lot 
6. yes 
7. but not much on IPv6 
8. It was VERY important 
9. ?? 
10. keep up w/ progress of standard would be good to have government who is actually trying to do this 
11. It's important to gather deployment data. 
12. very interesting 
13. force the issue more 
14. didn't attend 
15. very good experience for both presenters and users 
16. v6-only ssid should be provided with proper directions or help with troubleshooting. 
17. Maybe not in this format, e.g. just leave IPv4 on, but put all the IPv6 themed content in the Hour. Then people who really don't care (and there were a few) can go out to the bar, or whatever. 
18. if nothing else to prove to the world IPv6 is not ready for enterprise 
19. No, as I think the point got across well. 
20. Heck yes. I can't think of a better community to test all this IPv6 stuff in near-real-world conditions. I know there will be another layer of problems next time. 
21. This was a retarded idea and a waste of everyone's time 
22. Yes, yes and yes. We need to get everyone to run v6 and understand what still needs to be fixed to get us all to actually dual-stack/migrate. And better understand what we don't know yet :) 
23. Good to see "new" technology 
24. Just the mere statistics was a great experience. 
25. - 26. It would be profitable to do this as an iterative process... we may not have found some problems this time around because people were stopped by other problems. As we fix some issues, new issues which were not testable before may become apparent. We should continue to do this at every meeting until we're able to run a flawless v6-only network. 
27. Reinforced things we already assumed. 
28. - 29. I wish there was more time for data to be analyzed before the presentation today. I hope that there is further investigation done on the data that was compiled 
30. - 31. Yes! Every time until we get it right! 
32. It would be profitable to do this as an iterative process... we may not have found some problems this time around because people were stopped by other problems. As we fix some issues, new issues which were not testable before may become apparent. We should continue to do this at every meeting until we're able to run a flawless v6-only network. 
33. It was interesting to hear about limitations in client and infrastructure implementations. 
34. - 36. It would be profitable to do this as an iterative process... we may not have found some problems this time around because people were stopped by other problems. As we fix some issues, new issues which were not testable before may become apparent. We should continue to do this at every meeting until we're able to run a flawless v6-only network. 
37. I think it served it purpose 
38. If a sufficient NAT solution can be found. 
39. Complete waste of everyone's time. If you want to play with IPv6 do it on your own time. 
40. Given multiple or more robust nat-pt boxes, should work Just Fine. 
41. showed how far from operationally ready we all are, reminded me of usefulness of the Verizon EVDO service 
42. ... only if there is sufficient capacity for the users that are present. 
43. Lets see if we can get a scalable NAT PT gateway next time 
44. Ideally, it should be repeated in a format where people having difficulty can signal for assistance from people with greater v6 experience and/or a desire to help. Let's try and build up the community IPv6 implementation experience and knowledge. 
45. Yes, it was useful. No, it should not be repeated, at least not for a while. 
46. Reality checks are always useful, particularly when reality doesn't match what advocates of something new are claiming or are not acknowledging the drawbacks. 
47. maybe spread to 2 hours. Have not seen analysis yet but compare loading between v6 hour and other hours would be interesting. 
48. Only by having loads of people connecting IPv6-only you can find some problems (scalability etc) 
49. maybe if a clearly stated goal is articulated that makes a future event different than this one. IE repreating the same exercise is not worthwhile 
50. Incentive to fix things that don't work :) 
51. Hopefully more progress is made on IPv6 support, like DHCPv6 on Mac OS and AAAA support in Windows XP. 
52. Repeating it with better infrastructure and better documentation seems like a good idea, perhaps not next nanog, but... 
53. It was useful--so how about advertising how you are going to configure it? We could come prepared to help with the troubleshooting. 
54. It was a useful learning experience for me, and for Randy. :) I don't think it should be repeated next meeting, but perhaps later when there's better infrastructure and hopefully better application support. In the meantime, I'm very much in favor of having the V6-only network available in parallel. 
55. leave up the v6 only ssid for people who want to use it. do not turn off the actual internet. 
56. It shouldn't be repeated, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't useful. It's given the researchers their data, and hopefully achieved some of what it set out to do, but please don't play with our connectivity or have us make awkward choices such as leave to sit in the v4 island rather than listen to the talks. 
57. If I had known they were going to fix it, I would have continued to attempt to utilize it. 
58. I never would have tried it without the hour. 
59. It made us very aware that the President's office of Budget and Management should not dictate Protocol used deadlines like they tried before with GOSIP OSI 
60. Make it the entire meeting. Then you'll get their attention. 
61. If someone could speak about best practices multi-homed, global companies(Non ISP) should follow when obtaining IPV6 address space whether that address is provider assigned or end user assigned. Isues to addess, should a company ask for a /32 and distribute to all the regional offices? should regional offices(London, Paris, NY, LA) each get their own /48. 
62. Guessing it will be.

Answered question

143

(skipped this question)

45

What did you like/dislike about the meeting venue?

Answered question

101

(skipped this question)

87

1. n/c 
2. good! 
3. ample space, allows instant BoFing recommended also in the future 
4. very good 
5. good meeting on power 
6. good location, lots of options in walking distance 
7. good food. a long hike to the bathrooms. lots of eating establishments nearby 
8. no complaints about the venue 
9. location proximity to food was appreciated 
10. close proximity to food, public transit, off-site parties 
11. actually, I don't have very many negative comments - the venue was pretty good overall 
12. great location, good service 
13. hallway topology meant people were very spread out. otherwise very nice. 
14. don't have to be in a fancy hotel 
15. parking 
16. ballroom big, other 2nd floor rooms were a bit small 
17. it was local for me 
18. all ok but breakfast should have some type of protein, like ham, eggs, yogurt, etc. 
19. dislike the price 
20. no real problems. it was very good. come back. 
21. liked breakout rooms - especially Peering Bof room 
22. very nice hotel. easy to get to restaurants, sites to do related business 
23. parking sucks! 
24. liked it 
25. because so many people know each other, it can be clicke-y 
26. good venue 
27. it was very nice. 
28. many eating options 
29. very nice hotel 
30. air condition in imperial ballroom (drafty) 
31. BoF was great 
32. driving distance from work. west coast is easier, fairmont was great 
33. very good venue, convenient 
34. great location 
35. I find NANOG discussion on 100G, power and general routing architecture very useful 
36. Fantastic accomodations, nice spacious main meetng room. Was unaware the general session was moved upto 10am, so basically killed 1 hour. Horrible wireless connectivity the first day. My session timed out over 8 times between 9-11am, and I finally gave up. 
37. Really good location with lots of good food nearby. 
38. Loved it. 
39. Everything was good. 
40. OK 
41. very nice - good location - 
42. overall it was good but I don't like San Jose 
43. Good venue. Long to walk around to get to the general session, but that is a minor issue. Overall good selection. 
44. Generally great. I can't think of anything I'd change. 
45. Plenty of food nearby 
46. Venue was good, ballroom was large enough for all. One of the better venues we have had. 
47. Elevators were a mile away, breakfast/breaks were so-so to disappointing. 
48. IMO, lunch should have been provided 
49. Very nice facility 
50. We need more technical talks 
51. The bar closed was too early. 
52. wifi was very flaky 
53. great location. A little hard to catch up with people but, I think that was because attendance was so high. 
54. - 55. Loved it! Took public transportation to the meeting from free parking. :) 
56. a little too cold in the big room, and a little too hot in the BOF rooms. 
57. Power and tables in the main room were very nice. Break food was quite good, but not worth extra cost if the sponsors didn't fully cover the costs. 
58. Worked well for me. 
59. Convenient location 
60. - 62. Too cold in general. 
63. Expensive parking for locals. 
64. Great venue. 
65. good hotel , conf room worked plenty of meeting tables for lobby meetings available 
66. excellent hotel, we should keep meeting at nicer hotels. 
67. Good venue, good social options. The breakfast was horrible.... 
68. Hotel pricing; the NANOG group rate was not impressive. Good to get free internet in the rooms. Spread out hotel => hard to buttonhole people, but good to get off in a corner and have a chat. 
69. classy for a NANOG, complete with live music in lobby. well selected; future venues should follow CRG's lead/upping of the game here. 
70. Location was realitively easy to get to and well laid out. 
71. It was in my hometown which meant I needed to drive home. Had to stay too sober. :-) 
72. Good size! Good food :) 
73. Lots of space was good, although the CRG West/ARIN tables could have been closer to the action 
74. very nice facilities and hotel rooms great downtown location 
75. Great location. 
76. Venue was very good. Lots of areas for private meetings. Lots of food options for outside dining. 
77. I liked that it was close to home. 
78. All were excellent. 
79. Great site for NANOG. 
80. Venue was good. Need better coffee. 
81. I thought the venue was one of the best in recent history. The hotel was nice, and the surrounding area was full of uncrowded and high-quality restaurants. 
82. Meeting venue was good. 
83. Liked it fine. Good location (of course I live in San Jose, so...) 
84. I stayed off-site, so the proximity to the light-rail line was nice 
85. Good venue. Fairmont is top notch. 
86. pricey but nice 
87. n/a 
88. Loved the meeting venue. They should all be this good. 
89. clearly signpost the bathrooms, and make them closer. 
90. One of the better venues we've had recently. The hotel is very nice, with a good downtown location with lots of nearby restaurants. 
91. good venue 
92. Hotel was good. Good location--lots of things to do in walking distance. 
93. The Bay Area is great for NANOG because there are so many other tech companies, vendors, etc., based in the area, it's possible to combine other meetings, HQ visits, etc., with the NANOG meeting, which reduces travel, and may make it easier to get travel authority to attend NANOG, rather than if NANOG was "free-standing". Slightly weird layout of the meeting area, but the hallways were nice and bright as a result, compared to the subterranean hell of Toronto. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it. The layout of the beer and gear was very good, the bars well stocked, and probably the best selection of beer and gear food we've had served recently - the more substantial choices of food were very welcome. Good eating and drinking options within a few blocks walk of the hotel very welcome! 
94. Very nice meeting venue. Plenty of space to sit down and use your computer. Meeting room (Imperial) is rather large, but the size was needed with the number of participants. 
95. Good location, good timezone, allows those attending remotely to attend without much problem. 
96. Minor nitpick: seems like we needed a bit more space. There were a lot of attendees! 
97. Power and network availability was excellent. 
98. Good location, very professional service 
99. great place 
100. Nothing 
101. great hotel, good break(s), comfortable setting

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

Answered question

53

(skipped this question)

135

1. internet speed! 
2. smooth operation - well done 
3. more operational side story, less vendor's special views, more invited talks (tutorials) 
4. earlier start and longer lunch please 
5. one hour for lunch is too short. 1 1/2 hours was always tight! 
6. wlan to rooms would have been nice :) 
7. more hardware/bigger booths for beer'n'gear vendors 
8. used public laptops/printer to print boarding pass 
9. disliked short lunch 
10. I would like a table/session/meeting table for educational organizations 
11. beer & gear worked well. good space. no lines for drinks, etc. could use more vendors & live demos 
12. wireless network was a bit flaky. food was very good. 
13. keynote was good, like the layer2 tutorials and BoF 
14. very positive overall 
15. improve wireless coverage. move start time back to 9am 
16. The 10am start time was great! I met a lot of people over a leisurely breakfast instead of doing a drive-by muffin-grab on the way to a presentation/meeting. I would prefer breakfast out by 8, meeting starts at 10. Put something in the schedule about it being a time to have private meetings, etc. to encourage people not to just sleep in for hangover recovery. Possibly alternate it with a two-hour lunch a different day for the same purpose. 
17. the evening activities were much more fun than a lobby full of geeks with laptops undertipping wait-staff 
18. Keynote speakers who talk to the audience like talking to their peers rather than reporters. 
19. I'm kind of lukewarm on the 10AM start time...I felt like I was throwing away a lot of my morning. 
20. What worked well was having alot of pauses so we could meet up with other people. networking is what i was there for. The beer and gear could be a bit bigger and they could have more demo equipment there then a table, a switch and two salespersons... 
21. The new schedule was excellent.. with one exception... an hour often isn't quite long enough to find and eat lunch and get back before the meting resumes. Moving back to 90 minutes would help a lot. 
22. The new schedule was excellent.. with one exception... an hour often isn't quite long enough to find and eat lunch and get back before the meting resumes. Moving back to 90 minutes would help a lot. 
23. I think the later start time was great. And it was good to see lots of socials and receptions. 
24. - 25. The webcasting was mediocre. The windows media stream quality was HORRIBLE (though the audio was good), and the quicktime would not play in VLC on any computer I tried it on (I tested it on Windows as well, though mainly was attending via webcast on Linux). Some machines had video, others had audio, but none had both (VLC on both platforms). The quicktime stream's video was very high quality. I wish there was a stream that could have been played in VLC on any platform in high quality. The webcasts also went out for 5-15 seconds every 5-10 minutes. This impacted all of the streams, not just the WMV or quicktime ones. 
26. - 27. Venue was good, timing/scheduling was great--keep doing the good work! 
28. The new schedule was excellent.. with one exception... an hour often isn't quite long enough to find and eat lunch and get back before the meting resumes. Moving back to 90 minutes would help a lot. 
29. Leep streaming live so remote people like me can tune in! Also keep doing the lightening talks. I thought that it was good to have fewer purely research topics. I think it is good to have just 1 or 2 at most per day. 
30. - 32. The new schedule was excellent.. with one exception... an hour often isn't quite long enough to find and eat lunch and get back before the meting resumes. Moving back to 90 minutes would help a lot. 
33. more chances to meet people, more breaks, more socials. 
34. Late start time was great 
35. - 37. WLAN/IP Connectivity was outstanding! Food catering on events was generally poor... 
38. breakfast options 
39. greate keynote, great variety of content, keep on the 100G updates. do we need other ieee or ietf exposure of the sausage-works? keep the late start, but need to have food at regular times; perhaps eliminate the before-lunch break? 
40. I liked the later start time as it gave me a chance to take care of some other business in the morning. 
41. maybe have a designated 1to1 meeting session? 
42. Same starting time each day to avoid confusion 
43. I did not care for the late start time. 10AM to get things going is way too late. I prefer the old schedule. Start at 9AM. Also, 60 minutes for lunch is not enough time for those of us that are "networking" with others. I like the old format of 90 minutes. 
44. very good meeting. 
45. internet connectivity was excellent. double-sided name tags 
46. Not enough power plugs in the breakout rooms. 
47. No presos in crayon. 
48. I wish they could all be in San Jose. I liked the offset time. Our lunch breaks were after the traditional lunch rush--way easier to get food. Starting at 10 is a good idea. 
49. Nice job providing plenty of power for laptop connections. Wireless worked well, too. 
50. 10am start worked very well. I think we should try and keep this for future meetings. It took the pressure off about staying out later in the evenings and socialising with other attendees. I'm pleased that the NANOG organisers recognise the importance of the social networking aspects of the NANOG meeting! 
51. The BoF sessions seemed to be beneficial along with the tutorials. 
52. The timezone worked well, as did many of the presentations in the general session. 
53. The IPv6 worked well but I would like to see the Cisco config snipit for all the v6.

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

Answered question

44

(skipped this question)

144

1. control & breakdown of P2P Botnets 
2. on Tuesday, room too cold - lots of people wearing jackets 
3. make Renesys stop doing marketing talks 
4. network crime, ddos/botnets obviously but with a larger focus also abuse work is only a part of the issue - same for CERT, Law Enforcement, Regulation holistic view of different actors, working together - understanding the actors and their views is key 
5. more v6 
6. heavier content providers (google, etc) speakers 
7. IPv6 DNS info via DHCPv6, please. 
8. docsis 3.0 - multihoming tutorial - lessons learned (multicast) 
9. advanced topics - fast pace 
10. the presentations use a lot of acronyms and specialized terms w/o explaining, which makes them difficult to understand as a newcomer. 
11. more nation-specific regulatory discussion. perhaps a panel of gov't LEA's and operators. A legislator would be even more interesting. 
12. like Layer 2, IXP, carrier and hardware presentations, maybe more video & IPTV 
13. expand on law enforcement & voip lightning talks to full sessions 
14. multicast 
15. Yes: -Network integrations (migrations, etc) -Network-wide deployments of a specific feature/capability to meet a time-to-market customer request -Someone covering the recent trend of dumb/cheap IP core for the commodity cheap backbone and a high-touch IP/MPLS network for the private services. 
16. Would like to see more sessions on video/IPTV in the context of network engineers (shamless plug for a presentation for a future NANOG). Think we also need see more IPV6 related presentations. Security, BCPs, so we can share and learn before we hit the wall. 
17. More ISP security and how to mitigate attacks, how to work together better etc. Arbor Networks for example 
18. Examining the old Peering Paradigm - are eyeballs more valuable than content or vice versa? 
19. We need more technical talks 
20. - 21. More on ipV6 
22. - 23. Deeper dive into the unannounced space usage; Get Leo Vigoda a real researcher to do a deeper dive into his data. 
24. update on internet exchanges and carrier hotels 
25. Stuff with more substance. 
26. e-discovery, wiretapping, IPv6 for residential customers, 
27. - 29. Skip once the 100Gig discussion ... 
30. Content has declined in quality / relevance over last year. More operational content. 
31. Remote peering - pro and cons? how much and how many? 
32. I think current PC is doing a great job. Varied subjects, clueful speakers. 
33. like it or hate it, need to keep on the v6 stuff. 
34. transit purchasing BOF; no peering/equinix self-promotion 
35. Should have talks from different types of companies (isp, content, etc) to discuss issues that they are having. 
36. IPv4 free pool exhaustion and ARIN policy 
37. Yeah, I'm going to submit one. Seems like NANOG membership is not very aware of the R&E networks. 
38. Network management/analysis/trending. What stats are folks using to justify upgrades. 
39. n/a 
40. A presentation on handling "flash crowds." A case study of Superbowl Sunday Internet traffic to advertisers' websites. A presentation on best-practices to combat bad neighbors on the Internet. 
41. Critical outage mitigation on large scale networks 
42. The topics seemed to be "update" focussed, i.e. the current state of networking technologies, task forces, etc. More presentations emphasizing best practices and operational education would be nice. 
43. I may be biased but something on IPTV, Delivery of live digital content over IP infrastructure, 
44. more on security

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

16

(skipped this question)

172

1. Akamai - Boston 
2. keep up the good work 
3. I will re-engage with Betty and Carol to bring NANOG back to Las Vegas soon. 
4. Limelight or Akamai. Cambridge would be nice in the fall some year. 
5. San Antonio in February. 
6. - 7. Google!! They've got the money, time for them to contribute. 
8. - 10. Other hotel options to choose would be helpful. 
11. Akamai. 
12. nanog hotel rate was more than the general rate (fairly large difference).... 
13. n/a 
14. Tim Pozar (United Layer) has expressed interest in hosting a meeting in San Francisco. 
15. Perhaps tracks should be established ( at least two ). One dealing with the layer 2 and below issues, and one dealing with layer 3 and above. While I had an academic interest in the new technologies associated with line cards and switch fabrics, I assume those vendors are going to come up with the solutions. At the same time, I was more interested in hearing about how the operators deal with network security issues from the core of the Internet. 
16. Cox Communication, San Diego CA during the Spring or Winter, Ames Research Center/Moffett Research Park, Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA

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

Answered question

8

(skipped this question)

180

1. an IPTV demo from Microsoft 
2. ditto 
3. Easynet 
4. Tyco because we are all learning about the undersea cable world 
5. Akamai. 
6. n/a 
7. None. 
8. AT&T, MCI

Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question

107

(skipped this question)

81

1. to know what ISPs are thinking about. 
2. To update myself, to network 
3. peers in the community 
4. work/community 
5. to catch up with people. to gather latest trends 
6. I like to visit with <name deleted>. 
7. to look at the kinds of issues the ISP world is having 
8. to get a sense of the community issues 
9. relationships with peers, transit providers 
10. the poker games 
11. develop peering & some learning 
12. to touch base & re-engage with the ISP community 
13. expand network knowledge, create edu programs 
14. best venue for meeting and exchanging ideas with top people 
15. to talk to people, for the presentations and to present 
16. peering 
17. to keep abreast on internetworking technologies 
18. to meet other peering coordinators 
19. peering & networking are my life blood... 
20. hallway track 
21. to put a face to the names on list server; to lean how others manage their BGP 
22. understand how nanog works meet other operators 
23. my job now involves very large networks. for educational purposes. 
24. learn 
25. 1) to meet face-to-face with operators/peers. 2) to listen to talks. 3) to build business relationships. 
26. to talk to people 
27. peering meet & greet 
28. to expand human network 
29. to meet peers and vendors in one place 
30. to meet customers and to learn about the latest network development 
31. contacts & education 
32. learn upcoming technology for ISPs, share solutions 
33. face-to-face, latest info on practical observations 
34. catch up on new technologies & meet people in the industry 
35. meetings, some technical presentations. 
36. to stay aware of the industry and other researcher's / operator's / vendor's concerns 
37. Peering networking 
38. Presenter etc 
39. No one specific reason. HOwever, I like to hear challenges and solutions other providers are experiencing/dealing with to gauge potential problems. I like to meet people who can become a mentor or a peer for challenges and questions I have. 
40. "Network" with others in field, meet peers, learn best practices. Get beat with a stick about IPv6 so I can come home and do the same in my organization. 
41. NSPSEC meeting from remote. Worked well. 
42. Met american ISps 
43. discussion time, relationships 
44. While I am not in your target audience I do manage a small/medium sized business network and many of the items are of interest to me for current and future deployments and possibilities. As an example while I will not be needed 20 ports of 10G or 100G Ethernet it is quite possible that I will want the ability to do them in the future through my ISP/Data Vendor and the time lines as well as issues involved in development and deployment are invaluable. 
45. meet up with peers 
46. peering 
47. Friends, sessions, BOFs. 
48. As one of the lead engineers for a vendor, I try to get a better understanding of the operator community and the problems it faces. This makes me build better products. Both the scheduled program and the "hallway track" are great for this. 
49. Social & technical peering. Content and speakers. 
50. networking and internet security 
51. Get out of the office, share information, learn stuff. 
52. Meet people with similar challenges, share experiences, etc. 
53. To find out the issues that we all face and discussions about the solutions. To get an idea of what to expect in the future in terms of technologies. Finally, I want to catch up all my colleagues. 
54. We sponsor NANOG and I attend because of the people and the community. 
55. - 56. It is extremely educational to me 
57. to network and get opinions, thoughts, information about trends, new stuff 
58. - 59. Meet people, get peering, the usual set of reasons. Look for potential new employers. :) 
60. I attend NANOG to keep current on internet technology, industry trends and current trends/issues for network service providers. 
61. Just to get some information about how networks are operated and what problems people are having so I can look for solutions. 
62. community involvement, peer communications 
63. hallways, some sessions 
64. To meet other similar network operators, to learn about current issues 
65. Peering BOF 
66. Hallway conversations, presentations 
67. - 69. Had to travel to the US for a retreat so I could extend my stay and attend NANOG. 
70. Meet partners / customers. 
71. My main reason for nanog attendence is to put names to faces. I find the general session interesting, and the bofs vary. 
72. to get updates and inspiration about technical subjects to meet with peers and other partners to stay in touch with what is happening in industry to find new peers/partners/vendors and contacts in industry in general 
73. Drinking/Socializing 
74. Social interaction, density of business meetings. 
75. The opportunity to meet other peering coordinators 
76. Good technical topics, like-minded geeks, keep moving the ball forward for general Internet and specific NANOG-universe. 
77. networking, overview of current state of art/ops best practices 
78. Learn what is going on with outher network providers. 
79. Mainly... the relationships that are formed with the other members of the community. I, personally, find about 25% of the talks interesting or of relevance to me. (i.e. I have no interest today in 40G or 100G since I am not even close to needing 10G, but I completely understand that those subjects are very helpful for many others) 
80. to meet our members (from LINX) 
81. multiple reasons however get updates, make contacts. 
82. For the Beer and Gear, duh. 
83. I am a member of the ARIN AC and a network operator. I find the opportunity to connect with other operators and the heads up on coming problems and solutions very useful. 
84. Education on what is going on in networking and social interaction with lots of people without whom the Internet would not work. 
85. Get a feel for what is going on at providers today. Contact other attendees. Good exposure for my employer who is now more encouraged to sponsor. 
86. To find out how folks are running networks in the real-world. 
87. I can accomplish more business here than I can in 6 months of email conversations. 
88. To see how NANOG community works. 
89. I attended this time largely because it was local. 
90. Keep up on best practices and new technology, business networking, and just to get away from the office grind. 
91. As a small provider it's a good way to keep up on what the big guys are all up to 
92. First time. I am looking to learn more from the community. 
93. live in Bay area, so was local 
94. Socialize and make new contacts. Go to bofs. 
95. Technical content and social networking 
96. social contacts, informative topics. 
97. Different (and good) *technical* perspective(s). 
98. Social networking with industry colleagues. Meeting with customers and suppliers during the meeting (reducing extra travel). Hear interesting talks, and learn about industry best practices. 
99. I attended NANOG to get a feeling of how the corporations and individuals that make the Internet function deal with network security challenges as a community. 
100. Research and development of network operations as to improve my own systems 
101. Interest in SP environments, future job potential. 
102. My Boss wanted someone to see the 100G presentations. 
103. Personal/community networking 
104. The Nanog Conference is a good place to learn about the direction of existing and new developments in technology while giving me the opportunity to meet and talk to my peers and, the leaders and developers of the technologies that are driving the industry. 
105. Hear progress reports and views about upcoming networking developments and to communicate with peers in the industry. 
106. learn and meet people 
107. Interaction with peers

Is there something you would like to comment on which does not fit into a question above? Please leave us your comments here.

Answered question

33

(skipped this question)

155

1. lightning talk - Infinera - didn't tell us anything that wasn't terribly obvious to this audience already. 
2. NOON start time (not an option in question above for this!) 
3. I'm not representative of your typical NANOG attendee but plan to have my engineers attend the next NANOG event. - Mike 
4. double side print name tags 
5. need more "a" access points in ballroom 
6. one of the best NANOGs I've attended. Good Work! 
7. thank you Merit! 
8. thanks! 
9. no. 
10. 1 hour lunch a bit short!! 
11. schedule comment: sometimes I wanted to attend both sessions but they are at the same time. would like to see more discussion on operational issues on BGP; MPLS; and architectural solution. It is a good forum; keep it up! 
12. sorry I didn't get a chance to fill out this survey until now. 
13. Just wanted to say thank you for making it available via streaming media and wonder about the possibility of the video being available for download at a later time to see the sessions I missed. 
14. nice hotel, good conferance area. To small bar at the first night 
15. - 16. Is there an archive of the videos somewhere? Were talks that weren't webcasted video-recorded? I would love to download and watch the webcasts I missed and (if possible) any other talks that were recorded but not webcasted. I cannot find any information on any kind of video archiving and I think this would be EXTREMELY helpful to via-web attendees. I missed many talks due to my class schedule but wish I could go back and watch them now. One idea would be for there to be high-quality videos available via torrents, I'm sure they would end up massively seeded and would be very very popular among people such as myself (college students who follow NANOG remotely). All of that said, the webcasts were very helpful. I am speaking for many colleagues of mine in many of the comments of mine I'm making here, as a number of us were watching videos, made the same comments about the lack of video archives (or at least visible ones), and made the same comments about the quality and format of available streams. 
17. It would be nice to start on Monday afternoon and avoid holiday weekends. 
18. - 19. Maybe leave the lights in the room on until we finish filling out our surveys... :) 
20. I used VLC to connect to the MPEG4 unicast stream, but that option was not offerred in question 1. I got dropped a few times. I saw going to connect by multicast, but there was an error message posted about the multicast feed, so I didn't investigate why multicast wouldn't work. 
21. Please make the peering bof longer - NANOG should be that interactive. 
22. - 24. ASN in attendee list would be helpful for meeting planning. 
25. Please hire someone to do the video streaming. I have been rolling with NANOG since 94, and to date there hasn't been a quality streaming video feed. We have the bandwidth, we have the production gear, why can we not seem to pump out a good MPEG2 feed? Also, tell rbush to stop walking around every time he's speaking. The camera moving back and forth is like watching tennis and makes me dizzy! 
26. Thanks for a great meeting! 
27. Network connectivity was seemed to be saturated during peak hours. :( Name tags - This is a constant problem at every NANOG. Names are printed on a single side, but the badges have a tendency to flip over on the lanyard. Maybe we can get name badges that are printed on both sides? 
28. Maybe having a "global" topic for the meeting and making sure to hit most topics over the course of the three mtgs/yr. I'm thinking like tracks from conferences.... but that is my biased experience. 
29. Datacenter/facilities doesn't really seem relevant to NANOG 
30. n/a 
31. The operators that I spoke with during NANOG seemed to be resigned to "losing the arms-race" with the hackers, botmaster, spammers, and other malicious actors on the Internet. They seem to want to leave the problem to consumer ISPs and the users themselves. 
32. The time worked well for my commute from San Francisco (missed rush hour), but would be more difficult if local (no business to do early). However I'm not the target market... 
33. The NONOG group should try to include as speakers - non ISP, Telco or hardware vendors, but one or two media company executives who are leading the drive to migrate away from traditional transport medium and are now embracing the IP backbbone.

 

^ Back to Top