^ Top

NANOG 44 Surveys


NANOG44 Survey Results

Los Angeles, California (October 12-15, 2008)

How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent (Response Total)

in person in Los Angeles

95.7% (67)

via Web - Real Media

0.0% (0)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

1.4% (1)

via Web - Windows Media

2.9% (2)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Is this your first time attending NANOG?


29.6% (21)


70.4% (50)

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

1. I was on NANOG 4? This NANOG it's time. 

2. Comparable. Food could have been better. 

3. Very well run, I actually like the fact that it was held in an older hotel with history!:> 

4. About the same! 

5. Same - better content 

6. Missing speakers, poor talks. 

7. About same, but Vint and Larry were unique and interesting speakers. 

8. Not as much variety in topics. Great venue. 

9. About equal 

10. good 

11. similar to previous one. 

12. I can't really say. The topics change, but the format and people seem to remain the same. 

13. same standard 

14. Better than most previous that I remember 

15. Very good. Loved the special panel on Wednesday. Dr Cer was great. 

16. Great. Interesting useful presentations, nice venue. 

17. So-so 

18. Very well. Vint's keynote was as good as they get and, while none of the talks were "mind-blowing", I didn't sit through a single bad presentation. Lightning talks were especially excellent. 

19. Great. The main floor was setup a little strange, but I think it worked well. The hotel rooms were just 'meh'.

20. Preferred prior locations 

21. Very strong program...finally we're not talking about exchange points all day. 

22. OK content, disappointing location. 

23. The room was freezing. 

24. Venue was odd; 

25. favorably 

26. Comparable. 

27. Good! 

28. Better program, worse hotel. Hotel was pretty, but all the stairs between rooms was irritating. Add to that the the morning coffee was so far from the main meeting room... just irritating. Having said that, I'll take a poor hotel over a poor program anytime. 

29. The Biltmore Bowl was a little crowded, otherwise, great venue. I was coming for IPv6 discussions, and there were a lot of those, so I thought the content was great.

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Were the dates for NANOG44 acceptable to you?


93.0% (66)


7.0% (5)

If you answered "No" please tell us why


1. Canada "Thanksgiving"! (Monday) 

2. I had to spend my birthday completely in the airplane:< 

3. Would prefer more time between NANOG and RIPE 

4. Had to miss hte I2 members meeting. 

5. I would really like to see more collaboration between RIPE and NANOG with regard to the October conferences -- it's very hard to attend NANOG, return for a week, and then depart for RIPE. Spacing them out a bit more would be helpful. 

6. The joint meeting would be better served in the spring when travel budgets are not entering the "pinch" portion of the year.

7. It is during Canadian thanksgiving but it is almost every year.

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

31.9% (23)


62.5% (45)

No Opinion

4.2% (3)

Not Very Useful

.4% (1)


0% (0)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


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


90.0% (63)


1.4% (1)

No Opinion

8.6% (6)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


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


5.9% (4)


10.3% (7)


48.5% (33)


30.9% (21)


5.9% (4)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?


11.8% (8)


88.2% (60)

Answered question


(skipped this question)

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Well run nailed all the topics down well. 

2. Very organized, informative, well ran. Good to put faces to names and leadership of organization. 

3. Did not attend. 

4. More detailed financial stats would hae been nice. More transparency on ongoing costs. 


6. N/A 

7. boring, which is nice. needs more encouragement for public participation 

8. Did not attend. Last time I atteneded (San Jose), it seemed like a joke. 

9. Needed more discussions - the crowd did not engage in any 

10. Boring, for a change 

11. Good information. 

12. Did not attend. 

13. At hockey match. 

14. This was a great opportunity for making contacts and meeting peers in this industry. 

15. eh 

16. The meeting was fine, only I couldn't find the agenda prior to the meeting probably due to this being my first NANOG. Tue, 

17. boooooring 

18. Fun

Comments on the Newcomers' Continental Breakfast

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Good way to make people interact more. 

2. Lightly attended, perhaps need more marketing. 

3. Maybe I missed it, but AFAIR, there used to be a "stand up and introduct yourself bit" I don't think that this happened this time. 

4. Excellent, enjoyed introductions! 

5. Not enough tables/seats. Why not merge the two breakfasts, if you invite OLD timers to come mingle with newcomers? 

6. Great food. Nice welcoming environment. Thanks for asking old timers to introduce themselves and welcome us. 

7. Convenient, well done. 

8. Good 

9. Continental = FAIR 

10. N/A 

11. Nice food. 

12. excellent. good chance to meet new people. 

13. Nice (was delayed in arriving unfortunately by a business priority). 

14. Only that it, like all other breakfasts, should included more health-conscious choices. 

15. It was too large - not enough tables. This is good for NANOG. It really should be more structured on mentoring. Randy Bush did a great job of making himself available to newcomers at the table to make sure they knew they were welcome and tried to help them figure out how/where to go to get what they want. We should have a mentoring crew who is rtasked to do the same (yes, I'd volunteer). 

16. Invaded by old-timers. Maybe let's try old-timers by invitation only the next time please. 

17. Better than a classroom, but slightly disjointed. 

18. N/A 

19. Seemed dull. I think we need to try to impart some information on getting the most from NANOG to new attendees Wed, 

20. It was very interesting to see that peers from other countries attended. 

21. n/a 

22. This hit me as "fast and furious" which is both nice and shocking for a new comer. NANOG seems to be a fast flexible informal group - the breakfast hammers that home. (the food was great) 

23. This was a really good idea. Meeting the veterans can be intimidating. 

24. Did not attend 

25. my name is fred and i am an alcoholic 

26. All the food was 10 out of 10 and I'm hard to please.

Comments on the General Sessions:

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. I thought the presos varied a lot in quality; 1) Some were to hard to read - font too small 2) Content varied some talks wre good - most were hard to follow. 

2. Very useful. 


4. Addressing the same topics all the time! 

5. Most interested in IPv6, DNS, Ethernet reports 

6. Very educational. Well organized. 

7. Hotel sound system was not the best. 

8. Informative, good content. 


10. Setting to wide, project speaker on the side 

11. Well organized, I liked it. Especially the keynote & lightning talks. The live DNSSEC demo was amazing.

12. Good range. Richard's IRR talk entertaining and relevant. Lightning talks always one of the best reasons to turn up. 

13. enjoyable, relatively good content. 

14. Loved it. Absolutely great that Vint Cerf stuck around and actually PARTICIPATED. 

15. Good presentations. As always, frustrating to have multiple simultaneous sessions that I wanted to attend, but I don't think you can change that. 

16. Some poorly-prepared presenters who hadn't checked their files or submitted them in a timely manner. 

17. There were quite a few presentations and the subject of IPv6 was beaten to a bloody pulp. 

18. improving. 

19. Very strong lightning talks. 

20. Most of the sessions were interesting. Some naturally require one to have quite good knowledge on the topics and in the case where most people didn't seem to know or be interested the traffic graphs were interesting. 

21. Poor room layout, poor audio quality. Who was the suit running sound? 

22. There was a good mix of topics and very good presenters. 

23. about average for recent nanogs 

24. Very interesting/useful. 

25. Presenters were informative and well prepared. The content was worthy of the audience. 

26. There's a tension between the beering and peering folks having paid upwards of $500, and making them sit through board minutae.

Was the Keynote Speaker address of value?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Enjoyable, but a bit content free.... 

2. Yes

3. A lot!!! 

4. Yes 

5. Yes 

6. Yes! 

7. Very, Vint covered great range of topics and was a fellow geek! 

8. Yes 

9. Yes 

10. Yes 

11. Yes very much appreciated the presentation. 

12. YES !!!

13. Entertaining. 

14. Yes, very interesting. 

15. Always love hearing from internet pioneers. 

16. Yes. Inspiring and look back and forecast the future possibilities. 

17. Yes 

18. Yes

19. Not particularly relevant. 

20. Very much. 

21. Yes

22. Yes! Always interesting to hear. Dr. Cerf's "TAKE" on things. 


24. Great! 

25. Yes 

26. Very much so. 

27. Not very operational, but he's a good speaker. That's the point of a keynote isn't it? Get people to turn up on time? :)

28. vint cerf was great. amazing. the sony music toy was silly, but it was interesting to see how fascinated he was with it.

29. Good; too long however. 

30. Yes, but only for nostalgia. I honestly had much higher expectations considering the status Vint Cerf holds in this arena.

31. Enjoyed Vint's presentation. 

32. Absolutely. Vint has his finger on what's broken and needs fixing. 

33. This one was a little disapointing. My expectations were not met and some of the talk were clearly not meant for the internet expects but more for people with a more general knowlegde of the internet 

34. Excellent talk!

35. Absolutely yes. 

36. Vint Cerf is always insightful and entertaining. 

37. Enlightening. 

38. Yes! Vint was perfect. 

39. Vint was amazing. I found him to be very engaging. 

40. I love listening to Vint. 

41. absolutely! 

42. Yes. I really look forward to the Keynote speech at each NANOG. Even if I have to attend remotely, this is the one talk I will always make time to watch. 

43. Excellent! 

44. Absolutely...worth the flight alone. 

45. yes, it was very good 

46. Yes it was, the choice of speaker was great (IMHO) and the content of the Keynote echoed many themes that are seen in the talks/presentations all week. 

47. Yes, unique look ahead at possibilities for the future. 

48. Yes, Vint was great! 

49. Yes, please continue 

50. Very much. 

51. It is always interesting to hear Vint Cerf speak. 

52. yes, but more for entertainment than knowledge transfer 

53. The keynote was excellent... more speakers of this caliber would be appreciated. 

54. Best ever. 

55. Yes! Get more legends give interesting talks! 

56. Not really. Interesting speaker but he's just a man and there was no new insights revealed 

57. Would come to hear Vint Cerf anytime. 

58. Sure, Cerf was fun.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Too many interesting topic tutorials had conflicting times. BGP was good. 

2. BGP Tutorials were good refresher and interesting. 

3. NetSec BoF was most helpful. 

4. IPv6 = Good

5. Googles router cofig. management. We know we need to do that for 10 years now, THANKS. Some solutions presented would have been nice. 

6. BGP techniques - well organized, clear, great pace 

7. Good selection, very relevant to current interests.

8. Voice one a little light, more of a 101. 

9. IPv6 Routing was very good. 

10. N/A 

11. Please record them, since often 2 good ones are on at the same time. Saw Voip and multicast. Good. 

12. cisco no-shows were frustrating. 

13. Philip Smith's BGP and IPv6 excellent. IP Fairness talk was way too long for topic. 

14. The "BGP Techniques for Service Providers" was very disappointing; it was basically BGP 101. 

15. none. 

16. n/a 

17. (Attended none.) 

18. P. Smith's IPv6 intro was great, but about three months too late to really help me out. Now I've got FFFFs everywhere...

19. Did not attend any. 

20. Did not attend. 

21. none 

22. It is completely unacceptable for two speakers/presenters to be MIA. I am specifically referring to the QOS tutorial on Sunday afternoon and the IPv6 in Broadband Networks on Tuesday evening. I can understand delays, etc., but when talks are scheduled in advance and travel/attendence is arranged based on a certain agenda it is not acceptable for speakers to fail to show with no explanation from anyone in the program or steering committee. I am not sure how to guarantee attendance but given that these two presenters happen to be from the same company (Cisco) it seems that perhaps they should send multiple presenters, or should be punished for contempt of NANOG or something... 

23. first 1/2 of bgp tutorial was good, second half felt like a big lecture about why we should use aggregates and reduce the routing table 

24. The VOIP tutorial for service providers was well presented - the only change is probably there should be a better way to capture audio off the presenter's laptop than pointing the mic at the speakers. 

25. BGP techniques for service providers - excellent content even for someone who knows BGP fairly well. 

26. none for me 

27. missed 

28. BGP with Philip Smith is great.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. DNS Authentication - was hard to follow 

2. Why did the intercage IT get pulled from the Sec-BoF? 

3. Outage monitoring... hmmmmm 

4. ISP security - ok 

5. OK overall (Security) 

6. Security BoF needs MORE time! 

7. Peering BoF: Missed Bill, but still useful 

8. Peering bof always useful but Yahoo seemed to have an agenda to pursue. Bill's Bofs were better. 

9. security bof was interesting, but sales pitch by ultra was a bit perplexing. not clearly wrong, but also somewhat confusing to see at nanog. 

10. Peering BOF was excellent. 

11. The DNSSEC BoF and discussion was enlightened and informative. The ISP Security BoF was informative, but disturbing; it appeared that Centergate, one of the sponsors (CGR), was pushing one of their own products (UltraDNS). 

12. I really enjoyed the Peering/Exchange BoF in the basement. The open mic communication concept is much more useful than a presentation for some issues. 

13. Peering BOF room was weird. 

14. DNSSEC BOF was good (well, Lamb's presentation was a bit annoyingly apologetic and self-admitedly biased). 

15. Security BOF was good, but some speakers were a bit too commercial for my taste. DNSSEC: Very good. 

16. Did not attend. 

17. Brokaw was an excellent moderator for the peering BoF. 

18. none 

19. missed 

20. n/a

Was the joint Wednesday morning Moderated Panel session of value?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. not available 

2. No 

3. Yes

4. yes. way more interesting/clueful than i thought it would be. 

5. No. The only material thing I witnessed was Van Jacobsen taking the blame for NAT.

6. did not attend.

7. yes - the idea is good - too bad that the content the panel had did not come up with anything new to anybody

8. It was interesting but I don't think it ended up contributing anything that we didn't already know or provide any clear direction. 


10. Yes. Perspective of those with experience and architectural view was great! 

11. Yuck. If your esteemed presenters can't run their own preso, how about new panelists. 

12. Probably of more import to those who were not there, but it was interesting and entertaining. 

13. Yes it was. 

14. no 

15. This hasn't occured yet 

16. Will not be able to attend. 

17. Won't stay for that. 

18. n/a

Was the Internet2 Member meeting broadcast in the open seating area of value?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. No 

2. Most definitely 

3. ??? 

4. Did not attend.

5. NO 

6. N/A 

7. n/a

8. did not attend.

9. did not use, sadly. I love the concept. 

10. Was in room three times for other purposes - nothing was being broadcast each time. Don't know that it was used. 

11. not for me 

12. Did not use. 

13. It was very interesting. I plan on doing more research to become better educated in the subject of Internet2.

14. no 

15. I haven't made use of this 

16. Did not attend. 

17. n/a

Did you attempt to connect to the nanog-v6 SSID during the meeting?


25.8% (16)


74.2% (46)


1. User error:> 

2. Worked Fine. 

3. Unfortunately corporate laptop not IPv6 - Configured! (Long Story) 

4. TOOO COLD!!! 

5. No need. nanog ssid was dual stack - perfect. 

6. I had v6 on the nanog-arin network; dual stack works [for now], so why torture yourself? 

7. not on site. 

8. Randy's IPv6 hour was really effective, but not long enough. People could get by without using their laptops for an hour. I believe that IPv6 should be used everywhere and that IPv4 SSIDs should be made available on a limited basis for the whole conference. Like, you might have an IPv4 AP in only one corner of the main room while there's great connectivity for IPv6 SSIDs throughout. The IPv4 section would be akin to a "smokers" section. 

9. It worked ok, but the usual stuff we saw at previous similar events didn't work for me. 

10. No problems. For a time Sunday, only IPv6 was available and I had no problems. For the most part I didn't even notice that V4 was down. 

11. Worked, no problems. I connect to a native v6 network at my employer. 

12. very good 

13. cool 

14. In my room on the 7th floor this is the only nanog SSID I can see. Not sure why it propagated further than the others. 

15. My laptop did a poor job of remembering the v6 nameserver. 

16. worked 

17. Didn't work, looked like no default route.

What did you like/dislike about the meeting venue?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Coffee was too eak. firstday was over air-conditioned. 

2. I disliked that the hotel did not have FREE internet access in the rooms. 

3. Everything was taken care of, in-adequate supply of beverages, etc. 

4. It was good. 

5. No problem at all with the hotel. Oh, one thing, It would be nice to have fee wifi in the rooms. 

6. Not much close to the hotel. 

7. Meeting room was small - table seats ran out quickly. 

8. Central location, to few bottled drinks (water). 

9. I disliked spakers not showing up (which might be for a rad), but notifying the audience would be nice.

10. No mini-bar in the rooms:<:> It was fine. 

11. Would have been nice to have more seating in the hallways. 

12. Beautiful hotel, large meeting rooms, good food and service. Loved having the meeting in downtown LA. 

13. I think it would be better to have more social events. 

14. Good Hotel. 

15. Well located. 

16. Very beautiful but very expensive. 

17. The hotel rooms, Location, Lack of night life. 

18. Parking was ridiculously high 

19. Dislike - expensive. Like - weather. 

20. too cold! layout in the ballroom sub-optimal 

21. Convenient, good hotel staff, nice. 

22. It was COLD in the meeting spaces. Guest rooms were old, had bad plumbing, and smelled of cigarette smoke (yes, California has smoking rooms in hotels, go figure). 

23. You could have made a better hotel choice. I was generally unimpressed with rooms, service and amenities. I checked out early and moved to The Standard a block away. They had double-bed rooms still available and free wifi and a much more friendly staff. 

24. too much cooling in the meeting rooms 

25. Hotel sucked, old, dirty, overpriced, and no good food nearby. Can we please not do downtown LA like this again. 

26. Too cold!! Got a frozen shoulder now. Temperature requirements should be put in RFP docs and hotels who are unable to maintain socially acceptable temperatures should not be chosen. This is really way beyond a joke now. Plus the hotel was a complete maze, but the signage at least helped. 

27. Excellent historical hotel, sound was weird. 

28. cold, cold, cold, cold, cold 

29. Really disliked all of the ringing feedback. Time for better sound crew. 

30. Heavy small of stale tobacco smoke in halls of hotel, but not in room. Room layout was very awkward and often people found themselves in the wrong room. Temperatures in meeting romms varied from a bit warm to freezing. 

31. A majority of the speakers could have been a bit more animated. 

32. I wasn't a fan of the hotel. The lobby and common areas were nice, but the sleeping rooms were badly in need of updating. 

33. n/a 

34. hotel room in the Biltmore could have been better. 

35. Very swanky. Very LA. We should try to keep these out of the soulless downtown areas of cities.

36. hotel was old and it showed 

37. I liked the hotel in general only the traffic kept me up frequently at night. 

38. Horrible hotel - disappointing rooms, poor meeting layout. Whoever thought it'd be fun to walk up ~40 steps to get coffee (or breakfast) then walk back down ~40 steps without spilling said hot coffee needs to think again (or think once). 

39. Not enough restaurants near hotel. 

40. breakfast location odd 

41. Very cool. 

42. Good next gen content such as IPv6 and DNSSEC 

43. parking ridiculous hotel classic, which made rooms a bit small, but still lovely 

44. good for options of flight times/airports. 

45. Location - West coast is really bad for us Europeans 

46. Bathrooms in rooms too small. Stairs everywhere (even to the elevators). Really an irritating layout. Tue, 

47. Hotel was classic and coffee/food/bars were within easy walking distance. 

48. Perfectly nice.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. I like that there were breaks every 1.5 hours. 

2. Better food. More topics on power/cooling. 

3. Liked the fact there was audio streaming to listen to it on my phone. 

4. I loved having names on both sides of badges!! 

5. _ Speaker management - keep track and let people know if there are delays + Resgistration 

6. 1. Registration - efficient and friendly 2. Beer n Gear - Carol did a great job with the event 3. Like the focus on technology and problem solving, minimal product commercials by vendors. 

7. Registration process was smooth. Social events disappointing. Provide lunch and leave us more for dinner. 

8. Good talk selection, good lightning talks. Like the party after the B-n-G 

9. Overall good program. Some speakers were too slow in covering their topics. 

10. Check-in was very easy. People should get a really good discount for pre-registering at the current event for the next event. Instead of formal BoF time where subjects are determined by PC, I recommend a more Usenix-style BoF time where members dictate what they want to talk about. 

11. Double sided name tags worked very well 

12. Air conditioning worked too well. 

13. The "High Visibility Topic" to be announced later was a bust. Did not hear what went on there. Liked the keynote this time and at the June/Brooklyn meeting. 

14. I would hopt that the AV system could be better utilized. This was made more important with the very shallow, wide layout. You pretty much had the choice of seeing the slides orr seeing the speaker. 

15. We need to encourage the speakers to be a bit more enthusiastic about the subjects they are presenting.

16. less fluff 

17. Too many surveys!!! One from Rogers One for NANOG (this one) One during one of the talks. I missed the peering BOF, but there is usually one there too. It would be nice to aggregate these requests to a single location. I am survey fatiqued. 

18. Room layout was a mess.

19. Allow more discussion and Q&A. Start the meeting earlier and have lunch at 12:00. 

20. I would suggest the venue be near things to do outside of the meetings. 

21. AC power at table was helpful. 

22. start supplying lunch 

23. I know you don't have a lot of choice, but cities that are easy to get to by air make me want to come more. LA is great for that. I won't go to the next meeting because I can't spare the time to travel all of the way to the Dominican Republic. 

24. It was fine.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Speaker need to be better prepared, post slides in advance (only 50% did), and NOT RAMBLE. Also, slide font should be large enough to actually read. 

2. How about inviting Network Architects or Network Heads of big companies to speak at NANOG. For example: Network Head at Google. 

3. More participation from Major ISP's. 

4. More approaches/proposals to solutions then presenting "Yes, there is a problem". 

5. More security based talks. 


7. Talks on peering. 

8. More technical or advanced tops. I attend Joint Techs conferences, among others, and am used to seeing much more technical presentations. 

9. I'm very open to any subject. 

10. more real wolrd examples/more technical tutorials 

11. Ones that show up. 

12. Require no more than 4 bullet lines per slide. It was hard to read many slides. 

13. The presentation on configuration autogeneration was a great value. The results of the presentation survey will also be. 

14. keep the focus on IPv6 and other near future tech that matter for operations. 

15. Keep the IPv6 stuff coming, keep up with the new technology, and keep things friendly. You are doing great.

16. no

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


(skipped this question)



1. Cost reduction techniques 

2. Great job! I appreciate your efforts on the meeting. 

3. Maybe host in the midwest? Or not. Just keep it out of downtown areas where hotels are more expensive, driving is a hassle, parking is expensive, and dining is non-existant in the evenings. A certain number of people will always have to "change planes"; if you live in California or New York, get over it. 

4. fine

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Networking and Peering 

2. NANOG appears to be becoming more multi-national. The APNIC/RIPE members were more plentiful at this NANOG. Likewise, NANOG's broader appeal may be more interesting to non-US sponsors. 

3. Great work! 

4. Wow, I feel for these folks. Especially Switch/Data -- did they get enough touches of their target market?

Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. To understand trends/challenges in the ISP community. 

2. Content. I learn about industry best practices. 

3. Peering relationships. 

4. To see where everyone in service provider/data center communities are. 

5. Social networking 

6. Networking 

7. Networking 

8. Interesting topics and social networking (real-life) 

9. Aggregation of peering coordinators. 

10. Lets me understand the problems faced by network engineers and their solutions. 

11. It's in a class of its own. 

12. To keep u to date with current trends and commercial practice. 

13. To stay current on recent research. 

14. The T-Shirts :> Seriously, this is a well-ran event, w/no BS, good coverage on topics that I care about.

15. To keep current. 

16. To gain greater perspective 

17. To talk to other networks in person 

18. Great event, a lot of glue ;-) 

19. We are gathering peering information and looking for peering partners. 

20. To participate in the community, but primarily to attend the ARIN meeting. 

21. I presented at a BoF. I want to hook up with people there that I needed to meet anyway. 

22. I attend nanog to improve my general knowlegde of internet and operational issues, to meet with peers, business contacts and keep my copany a little visible in the community. 

23. Opportunity to hear upt-to-date technical news; opportunity to personally engage people in the community in conversation; chance to influence/educate community about important topics. 

24. To do a bit of social networking with people in our industry. 

25. It's often educational, and always vastly useful from an interpersonal perspective. NANOG's single greatest asset is the population that it consistently draws. 

26. i love what i do, and am interested in meerting people who share this and would like to make improvements in the industry 

27. To keep up with industry trends. This is a great forum to meet with my colleagues in a non-competitive format

28. It's a great way to catch up on the industry and network with peers. 

29. I attended NANOG to gain perspective on best practices and also out of curiosity of how the meeting is organized/held. 

30. I wonder...perhaps it's to meet people to find a new job. 

31. 1) To mingle with people deploying our products. 2) To give people an opportunity to hear about new technology by presenting advanced topics. 

32. To learn. 

33. Peering, learning about the adoption of IPv6 in the community or the time line to adoption. 

34. network in the community and learn what's coming for networking 

35. corridor meetings 

36. Meet with people... get updated on the industry. 

37. Develop cross network projects. Training. 

38. To meet people 

39. I always learn something and I meet new people in networking. I can bounce ideas and problems off people from other companies and find out how other people deal with operation issues similar to mine. And it is great to hear a joke about multicast and then hear the whole room laughing because they all get it. From a purely geek perspective, NANOG is delightful. 

40. To learn and meet folks. And beer.

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


(skipped this question)




2. 1. Venue for the next meeting - I'm already gettingpsh back on Dominican Republic. Is it to late to change the venue? 2. Party at the standards - poorly organized, very tacky to have the young women hired to entertain the group, PLEASE STOP. 

3. I'd like to give positive feedback for a website where (at least most of) presentations were available during a presentation. It was a great help when watching it remotely. 

4. The food choices were disappointing. There were not nearly enough balanged choices for a healthy breakfast, or break-time snacks. No, simply having fresh fruit does not count as healthy. 

5. I hope someone picked up all of the unused blank NANOG surveys out of the main hall and put them into a paper recycling bin. It would have been a huge waste of paper not to do so. 

6. Please expand the survey to ask questions on a per-presenter basis: DID we "attend", if so how, if so how did we like the material, if so how did we like the presenter? I bet that'd help the PC recap on how they did. 

7. Survey should not say to 'Click "Done" below' when the only button is "Next>>".

8. no



^ Back to Top