^ Top

NANOG 45 Survey


NANOG 45 Survey Results

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (January 25-28, 2009)

How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent (Response Total)

in person in Dominican Republic

83.2% (94)

via Web - Real Media

4.4% (5)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

10.6% (12)

via Web - Windows Media

3.5% (4)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Is this your first time attending NANOG?


19.3% (21)


80.4% (88)

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

1. I liked the smaller attendee group. It seemed easier to find and talk to the people who were there (although there were some things I might have gotten done if some people who hadn't been there had been...). I was disappointed that there wasn't more local attendance. I didn't leave feeling like I'd learned much about the Dominican Internet infrastructure, which it would have been neat to hear more about. 

2. The agenda was one of the best 

3. OK 

4. Enjoyable. 

5. Smaller. Good content. 

6. I thought the content was comparable to previous meetings 

7. Stronger than average agenda 

8. the location was a blast; the air conditioning to intense for me as European; the talks were excellent 

9. The combination of tutorial and session would be nicer than ago. The location and recession may be one of the reason that the attendee is smaller level than usual US domesitic forum. 

10. Strong agenda, and good interaction despite the low attendance. 

11. Good content. 

12. Comparable 

13. Good 

14. Interestingly different. 

15. Better than average. 

16. Very good. 

17. More presentations that were of interest to me. 

18. Logistically no different than traveling out of country for RIPE or APRICOT

19. great location, more local content would have been nice. 

20. it was nice, less people, better for one on one contact. 

21. Excellent content, and an avid audience. Much less typie typie from the audience, IMO. 

22. Better content, much better discussion. No real regional content (too bad). Room format is very nice. Felt somehow closer with the theater style seating. Power strips kicked ass! 

23. similar, maybe less people 

24. Nothing specific about the meeting itself. No corporate support for travel because of macro-economic environment.

25. First Nanog was Nanog 43 in NYC - so NYC or Santo Dimingo ???? ummm Santo Dimingo wins :) 

26. very good content. even the ministerial presentation was strong. 

27. not the best one. 

28. Good. Topics were of interest and well moderated. 

29. The content of the meeting was ok, but it was disappointing that one interesting talk (BGP add-paths) was cancelled and some regular attendees were not able to attend. There also were some hiccups with the local host staff handling registration, but understandable given distance from Ann Arbor 

30. Better than nanog 43 (did not attend nanog 44) 

31. Pretty Good

32. Good 

33. This was one of the best in recent memory. 

34. Pretty favorably. Good presentation content. Attendance seemed ok considering lousy economy and junket location.

35. It was very comparable, a lot of good things and some not so good things. The target audience level may have been a bit lower this time. 

36. Pretty good. 1st one I've had to go thru a casino to attend... 

37. About the same as others - good and informative. 

38. I have only been to one other (NANOG 44), but I found the opportunities to meet other professionals better at 44. The presentations I thought were better at 45. 45 was weak on the attendance though, which I felt hurt the experience. 

39. I thought the quality of presos was higher than the last one I attended (39). But that could be just b/c I'm getting smarter about a lot of this and it all seems more relevant :) 

40. More relaxed ... 

41. More of an international representation 

42. Well planned program, it had cohesiveness and was relevant 

43. The smaller audience was actually nice because it allowed me to talk to more people that I normally would not be able to. 

44. less people 

45. poorest ever visited 

46. wasn't as good as previous ones 

47. less people 

48. The program was far stronger for this meeting than those in the past. 

49. Location was excellent, although hotel wireless SUCKED, content was very good 

50. it was better in person. no serious flaws detected 

51. smaller ... but hotter :) 

52. Favorably, good content as usual. I prefer meeting in the US (closer to home for me) as travel eats up less of my time. 

53. Same great content, wish I could have attended in person 

54. Really good agenda, I think the agenda was a little more interesting, but the venue was probably the worst ever. 

55. Less attendees--> less value 

56. Location: much better (!),bv Program etc. about the same. 

57. It's a different experience since last time I was physically there. But it's still educational. 

58. The general trend is improvement, I think. Maybe that's just because I'm learning as we go. 

59. Smaller, great layout for the event. Good effort on the initial introduction of people but then everyone is on their own. Welcome reception was amazing. 

60. Fun. 

61. NANOG 44 Via WEB 

62. NANOG meeting are always excellently organized 

63. Continues to be good and topical (not tropical! Topical) 

64. I dont recall any previous NANOG that was this far away from north america. 

65. Great place. Good talks. Very informative and worthwhile. 

66. hotel - worse meeting - better

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Were the dates for NANOG45 acceptable to you?


83.2% (94)


17.7% (20)

If you answered "No" please tell us why


1. They were acceptable to me because I wasn't going to New Zealand, but it would be nice to have an excuse to go to NZNOG again. It was a good meeting the time I went. 

2. DR was a bit much 

3. Hotel did not present quite as many opportunities for interaction with other attendees. 

4. The location choice was terrible for 2 reasons 1) DR is really a 3rd world country, and 2) the location is a very bad choice from a 'perception' standpoint. 

5. Bum knee, on crutches, couldn't travel. Otherwise, fully intended to be there. 

6. It was too close to PTC 

7. macroeconomic factors contributed to make traveling here hard 

8. Location was a a financial challenge - airfare was expensive and had to be purchased ahead of time. 

9. A bit too close to beginning of year, but ok 

10. I am from Latin America, January for us is August for Americans....everybody is in holiday. 

11. Anywhere in the Sun in the Winter works for me. 

12. Location was difficult, but worse was being in Jan. Need to be later in Q1. 

13. Location was not the best option 

14. Very nice location! 

15. Early Feb would be preferable over late January (PTC in Hawai) 

16. Both the timing and location were awkward. January is too early and too close to the holidays. Due to the economy, Santo Domingo was probably a poor place, but it was chosen before the economy tanked, so I can't blame anyone. 

17. Please no more third world nations. It's not enjoyable, and causes a lot of stress with handling other responsibilities back home (think high latency high packetloss internet) 

18. The location proved challenging in terms of logistics, flights, and travel budget approval. 

19. However, I prefer meeting in the US (closer to home for me) as travel eats up less of my time. 

20. Personally I'm fine with it but serious, this is no fun trying to justify to company board ! 

21. Later in Feb is better 

22. I don't understand the why the dominican republic, but the date was fine. 

23. Well, sessions do begin at 6:30 AM locally. I forgot about it Sunday. Both Monday and Tuesday I missed all before the first break. Maybe Wednesday I'll start sooner. 

24. Company would not support travel to Dominican Republic. 

25. While the locale was idyllic for a winter meeting, it's seen as a boondoggle 

26. the location is really inconvenient, which prevented me from attending in person. 

27. february much better than january

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

29.2% (33)


67.3% (76)

No Opinion

2.7% (3)

Not Very Useful

.9% (1)


0% (0)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


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


91.2% (103)


0.9% (1)

No Opinion

8.0% (9)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


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


5.5% (6)


7.3% (8)


40.9% (45)


35.5% (39)


15.5% (17)

Answered question


(skipped this question)


Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?


3.6% (4)


96.4% (107)

Answered question


(skipped this question)

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Good format and content- helpful to know what committees are up to. 

2. Good format and content- helpful to know what committees are up to. 

3. This one went well. It's good to have lively discussion without major controversy or personality conficts. 

4. Good.. The finances stuff isn't fun but it's important. The need for meetings to fund things needs to be understood, and I believe the folks running this are doing a fine job with transparency. 

5. Good and Helpful 

6. it's not going to fit into an hour...please don't try. open mic time was completely insufficient. 

7. No contraversy this time. 

8. Now that things seem to be running at a fairly steady state, it might be interesting to use this meeting for some of the ARN/RIR/policy conversations 

9. Being my first NANOG the whole experience was a bit overwhelming. While the information is interesting and applicable, it is obvious that the most valuable aspect of the conference is the social networking that takes place. Within the structure of the meeting schedule the peering BOF was most valuable because of the interaction and participation among all of BOF attendees. 

10. Didn't attend.. In locations like this, move it to the pool. The majority of the community imho does not find the community meeting to be useful. 

11. My preference is for 3 meetings rather than 2 meetings per year. Have had scheduling conflicts with at least one meeting over the last couple years. Helpful to have the next 3 meetings scheduled. 

12. That was on the first day right, all that beer i drank over the last few days are clouding my memory.. Sorry. I guess we could have used more beer at the community meeting.

13. A little slow start. Some folks just don't seem to want to engage. 

14. Very Informative. Nice to keep the people apprised of whats going on. 

15. very nice opportunity to "network" with people as well. 

16. Good overview by all presenters. 

17. Very well nicely run. The semi-formality projects the image of control, seriousness and dedication to our community. Special thanks to Todd, Joe and Betty for leading a great session. Many thanks to the tireless support of the entire Merit staff who make these events a success. 

18. Would be useful to have budget slides ahead of time and the meeting more focused on discussion. 

19. Should have been outside with the rest of the community :-) 

20. Generally pretty good. It is good to get information regarding future meetings etc. 

21. Well organized 

22. Liked the informality of it. Keep presentations short, pull more from the audience. strive for 50% you talk, 50% audience talks 

23. N/A 

24. Too much complaining about the issue of "two" or "three" meetings a year. 

25. Good and informative 

26. A bit bland, but that is probably a good thing. 

27. 2 meetings a year is OK for XKL

28. Needs more community involvement in the discussion 

29. ./.

30. Too long, but not sure how you can shorten it 

31. missed 

32. NA 

33. N/A 

34. NA 

35. A bit slow and boring 

36. Didn't see it. 

37. no comments 

38. NA - attended via web 

39. boring, but useful. sc should pre-seed 1-2 structured discussions/debates about particular subjects.

Comments on the Newcomers' Continental Breakfast

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. This is a good event to promote networking. at one time Ren was collecting photos of people, don't know what happened with that, but, it would be useful to have photos associated with names for future reference.

2. Liked it - Icebreaker good idea and the drink recipe cards were a fun idea to get floks to interact. 

3. Liked it - Icebreaker good idea and the drink recipe cards were a fun idea to get floks to interact. 

4. No idea. 

5. Good format - nice way to get newcomer's to stand up and be noticed. 

6. Great! 

7. ren's mixer and enforced seetinh was little over the top... some mixer is good wireless mics have totally sucked a couple times for this. 

8. Did not attend. 

9. Newcomers Breakfasts continue to be very useful sent a colleague, first time attendee and they felt very welcomed and intern did not need hold my hand for the whole conference for lack of knowing anyone 

10. Great event, I'd skipped a couple of meetings and this gave me a nice jump start on newer participants. Wed, 1/28/09 7:41 AM 

11. missed it.. 

12. didn't go, but I do think it would be nice to invite a few old school folks as well as PC, SC, etc... One at each table, ARIN style welcome. 

13. Did not attend but I think this is a very good idea. 

14. n/a 

15. Nice mixer, well attended! 

16. Great food.

17. good mixer -- was able to give some newcomer's a few pointers 

18. Interesting. 

19. Useful to meet some newcomers to NANOG, but didn't do much to educate about NANOG or current technical topics, etc. 

20. Very good, I like that there where a mix of newcomers and more "old timers"

21. Didn't go. 

22. Round tables would have been interesting. The general seating in the theatre did not lend itself to meeting new people. 

23. I did not attend this time, though think it's a good idea. 

24. Did not attend 

25. Did not attend 

26. Keep trying these things 

27. N/A 

28. Didn't attend 

29. Did Not Attend 

30. I do wonder about the drink/pron name of hte guy who would not say. 

31. I thought it was a neat idea having the cards used for seat placement. This helped get people to meet others they may not have known previously instead of migrating to people they are already familiar with. 

32. fine 

33. NA 

34. ./. 

35. excellent! Would have been great to have breakfast together all the days 

36. Ren Provo did a good job of mixing it up and getting people involved. 

37. missed 

38. NA 

39. N/A

40. more tables needed- 

41. Didn't see it. 

42. Quite usefull, i will probly try to go there eaven if i am not a newcommer to meet the other new. 

43. no comments introduction great 

44. a lot of fun. 

45. NA - attended via web 

46. Excellent idea that should continue 

47. love it. so great.

Comments on the General Sessions:

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. The talk that really had me fascinated was Brandon Ross's lightening talk on rural wireless infrastructure. It was good technical content describing something most of us don't see very often, which probably makes a real difference to the people it touches, and which was relevant to the location where we had the meeting. 

2. In general the presentations I attended were well prepared. 

3. Good 

4. Good 

5. Pretty good, I enjoyed most of the talks.. 

6. Good 

7. David Meyer's talk on Monday was very good, useful, relevant. 

8. Excellent talks, through and through. 

9. Better selection this time vs last. 

10. General Sessions continue significantly improve in material and speakers I look forward to next NANOG 

11. Needed a longer lunch hour to cope with cultural differences... I was ready to start at 8:30. 

12. little longish at times. shorter presentations with more toipcs would be better (i.e. enjoyed the lightning round format) 

13. Very nice content, good schedule, happy with the format. 

14. Great, alot of smart ppl talking about smart internet things. 

15. String first day. 

16. The talk on submarine cable was interesting and different. I liked the talks pertaining to the Caribbean or LACNIC as well. 

17. Very nice topics. 

18. Overall improvement over past sessions, a few more technical/vendor talks would have been appreciated. All of the peering related items (Norton and BOF) are really old at this point, junk them. 

19. Overall pretty good. Would like to see some continuation on some of the presentations showing where things are months or a year after. 

20. Good mix of presentations. 

21. Pretty good

22. Good as usual - disappointed Presidente no show 

23. General sessions were okay but I felt an extreme lack of IPv6 push even in the IPv6 sessions. 

24. Good and informative 

25. Almost all were good content and most of significant interest to me. 

26. They were good. The subject matter was interesting. 

27. As stated above, top quality 

28. ./. 

29. Overall good stuff! 

30. Seriously good content. I loved the session on undersea cables, david's future of the Internet thing, and both renesys presentations. Some of the lightning talks were good, specifically the one on the planet. The one on the DNS hijacking was not so good. 

31. Interesting 

32. The sessions were fine, the layout of the room with the noisy service area in the back made it a little loud. And it was freezing cold in the room. 

33. Good mix of subjects 

34. Generally good content, very nicely done 

35. Good. 

36. Good mix of sessions. Quality better than past NANOGs 

37. no comments 

38. NA - attended via web

Was the Welcome Speaker address of value?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. I'm afraid I slept through it (jet lag after flying in from the West Coast). Past experience with meetings in countries with cabinet minister surplusses has taught me that having an address to the conference by a cabinet minister is very culturally important to the local attendees, and probably important for staying in the good graces of the local government as well. Lacking that sort of culture, opening the next few meetings with addresses by the secretaries of state of Pennsylvania and Michigan probably wouldn't be useful. 

2. Yes. I liked getting some background on the country and markets. 

3. Yes- I liked the focus on worldwide network and communication and the welcoming from the DR govt. 

4. Yes- I liked the focus on worldwide network and communication and the welcoming from the DR govt. 

5. No idea. 

6. Excellent presentation. 

7. Yes

8. YEAH 

9. no really 

10. Yes 

11. Yes, a little marketing-y but definitely worthwhile. 

12. Yes 

13. Yes, of general background interest. 

14. Yes 

15. yes. made me feel welcomed. 

16. Yes. 

17. Yes. That was the only real local content. I felt proud to be here and appreciated the countries desire to have us here. Well done.

18. Yes, the welcome address was interesting though non-technical. The undersea transmission panel was topical and more interesting. 

19. Some, the ones i understood. 

20. Yes. 

21. Yes, I liked the fact that the government and ministeries are interested in our activities and hope that by bringing the meeting to the region, more engineers from these areas were able to attend and benefit. 

22. Sure 

23. It was one of the best in year. Having the eloquent minister present his country and how he needed the internet to successfully to build his country's sustainable economy and raise the standard of living was a very powerful message. The minister was captivating and I am happy he took time off his schedule to address our audience. 

24. Yes, but they do seem to be getting longer. Keeping them relatively short might be helpful. 

25. This was great to hear from an official with the host country... someone who is not a geek... 

26. the one that didn't show? or the minister. Assuming the Monday AM speaker, he was very clear but focused on selling investment in the country, obviously a talk for another audience. 

27. If this was the guy from The DR on Monday, He was great! 

28. N/A

29. Nice introduction for the Dominican Republic, very entertaining. 

30. Where was the president? 

31. Interesting an dwell done, but probably not of actual value. 

32. usual host intro, couldn't seem to find El Presidente 

33. yes 

34. Yes. Very useful to get background on the country 

35. Didn't go, too early 

36. ./. 

37. yes, especially from the mayor of Santo Domingo

38. No speaker 

39. Yes 

40. unknown 

41. no 

42. N/A 

43. Good speaker from the government 

44. Didn't see it. 

45. yes

46. Sure 

47. yes 

48. surprisingly, yes. a government guy gave a great talk.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. I especially liked the traceroute tutorial and would love to see more talks/tutorials like this. Any tool that's generally available that people have found to be useful would be good. 

2. Very technical, would enjoy a little business focus in these sessions 

3. Very technical, would enjoy a little business focus in these sessions 

4. I throughly enjoyed the tutorial on how to read a traceroute. 

5. Loved RAS's traceroute tutorial. 

6. Good, thanks to folks to that keep doing those. 

7. Did not attend 

8. I think LISP might have worked better as main session talk because it was up against pretty topical session.

9. steve gibbard, well done. avi freedman, decent but could use a little more time on the refresh of content. dani petersen, would have liked better scoping in the abstract. 

10. n/a

11. I liked the BGP tutorials. 

12. LISP: Interesting to see how much progress has been made. 

13. n/a 

14. Pete Templin's metrics was a great survey - he should re-run on tutorial day sunday! J Brzozowsk v6 dhcp was informative. Dani Roisman's BGP metric talk was esxcellent as well. 

15. n/a

16. The traceroute tutorial was great for all. 

17. I really enjoyed the traceroute and bgp 102. I learned.

18. Peering 101: Should be a good online archive to have available.... Traceroute: Same; though I didn't attend personally.

19. liked the peering 101 - lots of fun 

20. Traceroute tutorial was good, having the material online to send others to and for reference is will probably be very beneficial 

21. LISP - excellent 

22. Peering 101 was an interesting topic, but, most of us know this stuff and many weren't charitable enough to realize there are some in the crowd that don't. 

23. ./.

24. did not visit any of the tutorials 

25. peering tutorial interesting. it would be worthwhile if tutorials not in main meeting area were recorded.

26. NA 

27. N/A 

28. NA 

29. Traceroute tutorial was excellent 

30. Didn't see any. 

31. Slides available on nanog.org and used by "tutor" rarely match. No easy way to know if or when most recent version is available online. I personally reuse these on occasion for internal training and complete/up-to-date slides are quite helpful. 

32. only comment would be presentations from different angles by different people perhaps have them get together and make a big presentation or general view. ie as2.0 dns and v6 

33. dani roisman was great. avi freedman's was enjoyable and interesting. peering 101 content was great but some audience seemed to not understand that it was supposed to be an introductory session.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Peering BOF always useful 

2. Peering BOF always useful 

3. I thought the peering BoF was useful. Aaron's software has real promise. 

4. Peering bof - Aaron did a great job - keep varying the 'host' of the peering bof as the different presenters each time make it quite different and quite lively. 

5. No idea. 

6. Peering BOF: Always fun - would like to see survey data parsed a little more to have a bit more relevance 

7. Good 

8. Security BOF was great! 

9. Peering BOF Good 

10. Peering BOF needs further interaction perhaps bring back Bill Norton 

11. Tools BoF, Security Bof, Tools was more interesting. 

12. Peering BOF was most excellent 

13. Peering BoF was very helpful. 

14. moderated so can't comment on the content. I was disappointed that two local lawyers representing the local government were there to catch people in the act of illegal activity. Not one local person was willing to talk about the local issues because of it. Makes me really appreciate the states. 

15. Peering: Always interesting. Survey results are useful. Survey questions may need additional review. 

16. Peering BOF always informative and entertaining 

17. n/a - oh n/a's are because i wasn't there. 

18. n/a 

19. Peeirng BOF was good. 

20. Regarding the Peering BOF... Think we need to mix it up... have more interesting topics... maybe more discussions

21. peering bof was ok - don't hold it in the big room; too formal 

22. Peering BOF, Excellent 

23. Peering BoF was ok, but same old stuff and probably a bit redundant with the GPF coming right on the heels of NANOG. Probably should have been cancelled. 

24. It's been a while since I attended the peering BoF, this one was good, I liked Aaron's tool. 

25. Peering BoF: v. useful info, good contacts established 

26. Peering bof, keep it going, don't webcast it. 

27. Peering bof was nice :-) 

28. Peering: excellent! 

29. Peering BoF was good, as always. 

30. Peering BoF really good 

31. Good. 

32. Didn't see any.

33. Peering 101 was good info. 

34. Security BOF was more a security track. 

35. very usefull

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


16.5% (17)


84.5% (87)


1. v6 on nanog and nanog-a seemed to work fine 

2. I didn't think to try it this time, but I have in the past. It is nice to have, please keep doing it. 

3. Couldn't get DNS to work...

4. expect to have v6 on all ssid 

5. worked better than my wireless drivers!

6. I did dual stack. 

7. This time was the first time in the history of a NANOG that is stayed up and reliable. I hope that was due to a new found respect for supporting and monitoring both stacks. I did not use the local v6 resolver (rather used one at home), but I do have 4 ssh sessions over v6 terminals always in use and was really happy with the quality! 

8. Used v6 on nanog-a SSID. 

9. No workie for me, but I didn't spend alot of time poking at it. 

10. v6??? what's V6 ? 

11. maybe I should have. 

12. The IPv6-only hour in past nanog was quite interesting. Though probably not for every NANOG; doing that again would help generate more discussion. 

13. why should I when I get what I need on the nanog-a? 

14. Just like the general public I went back to v4 pretty quick. 

15. I only have my blackberry thid trip. :-( 

16. i saw problems using those; with my macbook is was not working as expected. 

17. It's a small place 

18. no v6 on company laptop allowed

19. we cannot live only with ipv6 right now. please set-up translator or proxy along with the ipv6 only network.

20. NA - attended via web

Answered question


(skipped this question)


What did you like/dislike about the meeting venue?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Being on a tropical island in January is always nice, and Santo Domingo's old colonial zone was spectacular. I could have done without the overpowering mildew odor in the hotel rooms (this was in the "garden" building; I'm not sure how the rooms in the main building were). 

2. Just didn't like the cold temperature in the room. 

3. Couldn't bring the hookers back to your room. WTF NANOG?! 

4. Hotel was a little run down but had something for everyone. 

5. Hotel was a little run down but had something for everyone.

6. Erm ... It was in a very dodgy end of town, I think. Taking a taxi into the city showed me the nice side of Santo Domingo, but this side of town was exceedingly seedy. The venue NEEDS a good, indoor bar that people like to use so that we increase our opportunity to bump into interesting people from the conf. The hotel was EXTREMELY expensive - especially for food. Adding 15% to already expensive room fees as a tip is cheeky.

7. the hotel was excellent, although pretty pricy;

8. My only complaints would be that the theater was far away from the rest of the meeting rooms, and there was no space to sneak outside for a quick conversation or phone call. The theater arrangement worked quite well, and helped focus attention toward the stage. The hotel itself was adequate, and the staff very friendly.

9. I didn't like that I was NOT there... :-) 

10. Location was a bit to seedy with all the "talent" walking around...

11. Venue is Great! 

12. Far/Logistics a bit tricky. Hotel a little run down, language tricky, weather AWESOME! 

13. Distanve from things to see in the City. 

14. Travel, a bit distant. Otherwise GREAT!

15. Meeting rooms need reasonable thermostats, non-smoking access routes. Hotel rooms were disappointing.

16. Liked the country not US Disliked temp inside tooo cold, 2nd Hotel not connected to first. 

17. Poor planning between the Joint meetings of NANOG and GPF - would be just as useful to have NANOG end on Tuesday

18. way to cold - air conditioning on steriods 

19. loved it 

20. Loved the location - bar stayed open late enough! The rooms were very comfortable and the staff friendly. I have no complaints. :) 

21. Love the sun, pool, room, new country. Return flights to SJC area are impossible in a single day. Required to overnight somewhere to get home. The bars were once again not prepared to handle our size crowd and inventory. Perhaps during the pre-visit they should be informed to stock up on the liquor and beer. IMHO that is where SO MUCH of the value of NANOG happens. (after the meetings in the bars)

22. Like: Weather. Dislike: Travel was more inconvenient than other locations (3 legs).

23. I thought the climate in the main conf room was JUST FINE 

24. Well orginized and two thumbs up. But Started a little to early for those who stayed up late and drank those preadentas - Like me. 

25. Theatre was great - would have been better with a foyer between it and casino. 

26. it was too tight trying to get lunch in 1-1/2 hours with so few restaurants close by -- also lunches are more leisurely in DR and service was slower. 

27. Not much option of restaurants.

28. Unfortunately, smoking is acceptable everywhere. Not NANOGs fault, but still not pleasant for those who have breathing conditions or don't like a stinky hotel room. The hotel was sub-par. 

29. Very limited information about venue and travel info on NANOG website, IETF is a lot more thorough. Hotel not exciting, but centrally located...

30. DR was an odd place to have it. But I have to say the conference turned out much better than I thought it was going to be. The hotel was okay, I didn't get sick and finding food was not hard. 

31. The physical separation of the small meeting rooms from the general meeting room. 

32. Liked the staff and their willingness to help and the 1st NANOG on an island. The connectivity was excellent from the conference network; much better than expected given the venue. 

33. way too cold inside 

34. It was generally a pretty good venue however for me the travel (air) was very difficult... long trip... Also was surprised to get approval for this trip and going forward would be very difficult. Understand the concept of going to location such as the DR however perceptions make if very difficult to get approvals. 

35. Meeting in places outside of the US is very valuable 

36. hotel kinda slumy, but I can overlook that. Service staff were really good. like the big room - good network, very spacious - not cluttered, good power for laptops, good AV this time 

37. Hotel crawling with hookers

38. DR: great! Smoky, slightly down-at-heel casino far from beaches or other tourist stuff: WTF??? 

39. Hotel was not great although the beds were comfortabel. 

40. there might have been more attendence if not in a 'remote' location (eg. perception of locality...taking a vacation..etc) Perhaps somewhere in Miami would have worked as a jump off point for GPF in Punta Cana. 

41. Hotel smelled moldy; 

42. TOO FRICKIN' COLD MAN! I thought we were coming down here to get away from the cold. 

43. Rooms were too cold. Breakfast/breaks in the back of the meeting rooms were disruptive and made it hard for the presentations following breaks. Casino walk was annoying and smoky. 

44. As much as I enjoy to travel, I did not feel like I really knew what was around to do during free time. The hotel and its staff were extremely accommodating. 

45. most people were probably unhappy about the "tourist ghetto" hotel and expected a resort, but since we rented a car, we could get around and enjoyed many parks and museums off the tourist destinations. However, many DR sites were disappointing, (like empty museums that had been looted) but learned a lot about regional development of internet etc overall.. 

46. SDQ++ didn't dislike anything ... well the flight was a bit of a pain, but that's it. 

47. Walking through the smoke smellling casino was mildly unpleasant. Hotel service is good, but the building is clearly badly in need of refurbishment. Not a bad thing if the charges are commensurate 

48. List of nearby eating places would have been good. 

49. Too bloody cold. 

50. liked the warm weather but the rooms were colder than back in the north 

51. Airco! It was way to cold inside. 

52. A/C to low in the conference rooms. besides that, great location. 

53. dislike: breakfast, no. of attendees, how to get to the conference room (via casino) like: location 

54. airconditioning was set to "rapid freeze" to keep us young, wasn't it? 

55. Nice venue - hotel room price was awesome! 

56. I didn't like walking through the casino to get to the meeting. The break out sessions were better rooms, with the hall behind it to meet & chat. If you wanted to chat in the main room, you either had to do it IN the room & disrupt the meeting, or go into the casino, which was annoying. 

57. seems pleasant enough when viewed remotely. 

58. very grubby, hotel rooms not good, but that's understandable considering our location, still worth coming to the DR 

59. The shitty hotel and overpriced shitty food made the venue pretty awful. It is great to have a NANOG outside the US, but you could have at least chosen a nice venue - or one that is as nice as ones we've had in the US. 

60. Too cold, too dark. Nice setup with the levels and diagonal tables at the side. 

61. Audience room (La Fiesta Theater) far too cold! 

62. Please no more NANOGs in third world countries 

63. Wasn't there. 

64. It was quite well balanced 

65. Loved it. 

66. Loved it. 

67. without be a popsicle but airconditioning is every meeting an issue our braines do not need that much cooling. 

68. It was too cold in the venue. Too few choices for lunch place. Internet connection bandwidth is too poor.

69. Loved the fact that it was in the Caribbean. I would be greatly interested in seeing more of that occur going forward to assist in the growth of regional connectivity among operators. 

70. Very nice. It was a bit of a journey to get here, but something about getting people far away from home I think added to the level of interactions among attendees. 

71. Seemed fine 

72. Aircon was too cool 

73. Viewed as a major boondoggle. 

74. love the caribbean, love the weather, good price/cost. hated the smoky casino.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Good flow. 

2. Good flow. 

3. please don't take changing the schedule lightly: I was stuck at a restaurant taking forever to deliver food and learned afterwards that the schedule got changed and that I missed a talk I really would have liked to attend. 

4. HD video(20meg?) only had a few dropouts but wasn't quite HD enough to see the screens perfectly. I needed to use online slides at same time. Wasn't a real problem. 

5. Things were fine for me. Nice job keeping presentations posted on the agenda when those presenters were speaking. 

6. Start time was Awesome. Helped be able to stay out late and socialize which is an important part and a lot of relationships and work gets done. 

7. Organizers are helpful. To provide an outing session to visit places, tours

8. Quieter music at social

9. Bring back Bosack for keynote. 

10. Main room worked well - spacious layout. 

11. Lunch at 12:30 better than 1:00 

12. I liked that there were savory snacks at break, thank you! 

13. answered above mostly. 

14. Everythig worked just fine 

15. Party at the beach.... or Beer and gear around the pool ... 

16. Hotel staff should not be as loud as presenter. 

17. The food was good. Better than the standard US hotel fare. Meeting stayed on time, so no one's talk got cut short. I missed some of the talks by going on the NAP tour. It might have been nice to have found a way to do the tours outside the general session hours, but am fine with it either way. 

18. Take into consideration facility/vennue location 

19. More lightening talk time if there is enough good topics. 

20. The general session room needs to be like this one. No creaking/slamming doors every time someone enters or leaves the room. The GPF on the tail-end of the conference is somewhat controversial. 

21. Worked well: good flow, good pace (on time!) and Q&A 

22. noise from the back of the room - move the coffee and snacks outside again 

23. change the meals - not the same breakfast every day. If I eat one more piece of greasy bacon and sausage or dry pancake and croissant brick I'm going to cough up something slimy 

24. no opinion 

25. A/V was excellent 

26. A/V and La Fiesta layout were excellent. 

27. less of a temperature differential from ambient outside to inside the meeting room 

28. ./. 

29. january may be an issue for some people where budget for new year have not been released yet. 

30. I'd like to see more interaction between participants and attendees during presentations. 

31. See comments about having a space just outside the main presentation room to meet & chat. 

32. Attempting to watch via the internet was generally impressive - the video quality was pretty awesome! Unfortunately, the technical difficulties with the stream interrupted the talks enough that I gave up. 

33. I think the existing format works great. 

34. Normal temperature. Go green! 

35. The video streams broke up a lot. 

36. I'm using mplayer -streamdump to capture the audio/video. It had some problems with sync of the two, and some problems with the session disappearing or leaving the tail end of the capture inaccessible to a local mplayer. I'd like to have media files to download within the day or at most a few days, too. 

37. Find some way to "lift" the wireless up to hotel floors. Renaissance wifi was a joke. 

38. excellent connectivity not to exotic location it is hard to explain to management 

39. NAP tour is good, but conflicting with the session hour isn't acceptable. 

40. Everything seemed fine from here 

41. The amount of innovation that went into streaming the content was far more interesting than most of the content. Food for though. Especially mobile.

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

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. Again, a little more business not just technical-contracts, peering arrangmeent, best practices. 

2. Again, a little more business not just technical-contracts, peering arrangmeent, best practices. 

3. IS-IS deployment design in SP network 

4. The usual, I'll provide those when timely. 

5. Now there are many presentations, but very brief Number of presentations should be reduced and those that are should be more detailed. 

6. Why is IPv6 not rolling out quickly? Alternative to CDNs 

7. may want a presentation on over-all world of Names and Numbers, policy bodies, etc. There was a bit of confusion about LACTLD and LACNIC. 

8. Those of us coming from the west coast have a very hard time getting up for 9am start times. 

9. More practical implementations of new technologies.. What worked what didn't. More policy! We are so far disconnected from the changes in policy it's really scary. Sounds like we need more tools. Every time I hear some silly comment about not knowing how to implement something on a system etc it makes me cringe. We are sentient, capable people and should put our heads together to exchange unique skills and tools if it will benefit the community. 

10. nope 

11. Case studies -- how I did X? might be informative. TexLink's presentation was good and allows smaller operators to see what is possible on smaller budget. 

12. Legal Aspects also Political Aspects 

13. Panel of experiences building networks with different vendors (including Foundry, Force10, Alcatel... beyond 2 obvious vendors) for BGP/IGP/MPLS

14. What tools for monitoring are in use? Flow-tools etc.

15. Pick the brains of the v6 thinkers (what we thought then, what happened since then - valid/invalid assumptions, how do we make it happen now? Do we really really need all the v4 features on the v6 equipment (time for a clean sweep to improve processing power and reduce energy consumption)? Is the Internet green? what is the carbon footprint of the Internet today? Separate vendor session to allow them to sponsor /pitch their new products. This could be a brown bag lunch idea (vendor gives lunch box and you sit in their presentation) 

16. v4 markets & transfers 

17. talk: nanog future ideas - the craziest ideas for sessions at NANOG. I think there are some really creative things you can do at NANOG besides talking heads in a terminal room. Please make a NANOG to be remembered. 

18. more v6, PC should try to get speakers from all levels of networking to discuss the issues they have faced and how they have solved them i.e. LAN administrators, MSO operators, Research and Gov't agencies, small ISP's, huge CDN's etc. 

19. Get a room where we can control the air conditioning. 

20. ./.

21. If we could find someone to give _real_ traffic numbers, especially broken down by protocol, day/night, residential/business, etc., that would be excellent. But I'm not holding my breath. 

22. I'd like to see more of the talks on improving our resistance to malware. The Team Cymru MHR and DNSSEC talks were examples of what I need to know. I don't understand the attitude of "spam filtering is not operational" either, so I'd like to see discussion of why spam and other malware botnets operate the way they do and how we can discourage that. Also anything that helps increase performance and lower cost would be good topics.

23. 2 or 3 nanogs a year makes no difference to me. More likely to go to 2 every 6 months (and a tad longer) than 2 every 4 months. Charge more for attending. 

24. nope 

25. Why not set up the jabber like chat/log system ? 

26. It would be nice to get some presentations from content providers and their experience with scaling applications on the internet.

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. Arbor's helping in MI, I'm happy about this. 

2. Arrange an outing session,, to make the conference more enjoyable. 

3. Google 

4. The network was great! 

5. i don't understand. 

6. Akamai.

7. You might try the folks at Univ. of Hawaii -- and if the meeting is close to PTC people could attend both. Other ideas are joint meetings with I2 Joint Techs (you'll see a lot more research presentations and creative uses of the internet infrastructure)

8. Educational & Research networks to encourage interaction with those communities? Cable companies and other organization which have seen huge growth? People who aren't just selling new collocation space or Rodney Joffe (who has done more than his due). 

9. Locations that are seen as exotic (DR) are difficult to get approved. Further to this locations that are outside continental USA/CDN are difficult to get approvals for therefore # of attendees will be much lower. 

10. cover up the major holes in the streets so we don't fall into them have a beach opposite the hotel make sure all the hotel equipment works, 

11. perhaps a little more location research. This location seemed to be hard to get to/from to other points of interest unless you opted for the expensive cabs 

12. ./.

13. no changes needed imho

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. See 18. 

2. For academic purpose. 

3. If you allow NTTS, you should all all carriers pace, otherwise NOT CARRIERS! 

4. Vendors. We sure don't utilize them enough. No one minds having ads around the room or in content.. See google.com. Vendors will pay to get targeted content in front of these massive decision makers. 

5. is this a question? 

6. Akamai.

7. LACTLD (in the case will be in the region) 

8. give me better stuff 

9. ./. 

10. Accept more of them. 

11. no changes needed 

12. severcentral in chicago would be nice. june 2010 maybe?

Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. To stay on top of what's happening in the industry. I tend to get this more from hallway and lunch/dinner discussions from the conference program itself, but having interesting talks is generally good too. 

2. To network and hear what's going on in the market. 

3. meet industry people, customer, competitors etc. exchnage ideas, hear what's new 

4. meet industry people, customer, competitors etc. exchnage ideas, hear what's new 

5. To learn how other SP are operating there networks. For peering purposes. 

6. Learn stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff. 

7. meet people, learn the latest rumors, get uptodate on latest IPv6 development 

8. To learn more about my profession, and to interact with my peers. 

9. Presentations from vendor point of view 

10. Social networking, learning from others in the community - in that order. 

11. To network with peers and to (hopefully) learn new things. 

12. Community and information. 


14. To meet/chat with friends 

15. To educate myself and meet people. 

16. program personal networking Wed, 1/28/09 8:18 AM

17. To present and talk to people. 

18. Program, shake hands, etc. 

19. Relationships 

20. To meet with the community of interest to the work I'm doing - to maintain knowledge of current environment - to hear about new trends - to try to publicize the work I'm doing 

21. community participation,operational perspective, tracking resistance to deployment of key technologies. 

22. I operate a Network and also part of RIR community.

23. to be apprised of what is happening with the Internet in general and how that applies to the network we are trying to build at mozy. 

24. I attend nanog for technical information and to gain peers, as well as see friends and loved ones. :)

25. It would be challenging to summarize my reasons. Something to the effect of... Passion for this industry, high desires to bring the disparate communities policy, ops, business process, architecture, IETF, systems, etc together. Many smart people have the potential to be a brilliant community if they would just tear down their tunnel vision and work together. I constantly poke at the edges of the walls and hope to have impact. Aside from that.. There are always new things to learn. There are always sales to be made, and there are always new long term relationships with some of the most fantastic people I have every met in the world 

26. To know the challenges and open issues on the Internet Infrastructure 

27. Presentations. Hallway conversations. Additional perspectives. 

28. meet ppl / socialize and make some contacts. 

29. Like-minded people, engaging technical topics, keep the interwebs flowing. 

30. technical discussions, peering discussions, face-to-face meetings 

31. Because was in LAC, and LACTLD is involved directly with the issues in the region. 

32. General Knowledge. 

33. It is very related to my day to day job. 

34. To continue to partner with peers in the community and build relationships.

35. As much for offline conversations with members of the community as presentations. 

36. To meet folks from the industry 

37. To meet with people I work with yearly, meet new people and learn new things. 

38. to be in touch with the community. face time with customers, peer, vendors in one single trip (very cost effective) 

39. Meet and sustain relationships with other networking professionals. 

40. networking 

41. Too discuss and communicate with the community. Get updates... peering.

42. Social networking primarily, but also for the general sessions 

43. maintain relationships, hear what is going on over beers, get away from the family 

44. Meet people face-to-face 

45. Connect with old friends and customers, keep up with operational reality. 

46. As a representative of the ARIN Advisory Council 

47. network with the community, strengthen peering relationships, interest in the content 

48. Meet with other network operators, share knowledge, get out of the office for a few days. 

49. Keep up on what is going on in the network at large. Touch bases with those critical to my employer and my network. 

50. Professional networking and support my company's name (NTT America) 

51. keep in touch with the community and developments

52. Discuss peering opportunities, before I knew about GPF 

53. Professional development, to establish new peering contacts 

54. To talk and potentially do business with the attendees To track the topics of interest and keep current on issues in the Internet 

55. To meet people 

56. Peering related relationships 

57. meet the people in our industry, build stronger personal relationships, and leverage the meeting as an opportunity to receive feedback and perhaps offer assurance on items needing attention

58. to personally get known to people i know from #nanog, nanog mailing list of #ix as well as business contacts and peering adressments. 

59. to see customers and prospects, being visible 

60. both the technical and social aspects are of great value to me 

61. Situational and tactical awareness for running a networking company. 

62. Beat up on multiple vendors in one trip, talk to multiple peers about capacity & such. 

63. professional responsibility

64. Networking 

65. education and networking, staying in touch, keeping up on trends 

66. To follow new development, meet (new) people 

67. Meet people, learn latest technology, get new business ideas, trade ... etc. 

68. Fitted nicely with GPF 4.0 

69. Education and Networking. 

70. To learn how to operate my network better. To learn what upstream providers or possibly even peers are available. To make others aware of the plight of a leaf in the vast desert of the inner United States that doesn't happen to be a major city. I'd like to advocate for user ownership of infrastructure, too.

71. I have been reading NANOG list for 2 years, i got the chance to go and i think it have been verry usefull and intresting. Eaven tho im working for a smaller ISP. To see and talk to the people that write the stuff i read on the mailing lists.

72. Talks, tutorials, face time. 

73. meet peers / supliers. arrange peering maintaining contact 

74. To get familiar with internet operational facts and technologies. 

75. To appreciate more of the diverse research that is ongoing. 

76. To learn from and share with my peers. 

77. To hear interesting things from knowledgeable people 

78. to meet peers, partners and make my network visible in the community. Listen to presos and talk to plp to upgrade my skills and improve and maintain personal network 

79. I don't know. Why? 

80. to maintain an existing set of professional contacts, maintain and extend currency in technical subjects.

Comments for future NANOG Meeting Locations: (Does it matter to folks who attend meetings in person to anchor our meetings in the same Locations/hotels and work with the same vendor providing connectivity, or does it simply not matter to you?)

Answered question


(skipped this question)



1. I like seeing new and interesting places. Going back to the same place over and over would get boring, I think. 

2. I prefer places that are easy to get to - direct flight. 

3. Location doesn't matter to much. I am on the East coast and have only attended NANOGs on the West coast and in DM. Unfortunately that has been the way my schedule has worked in the past.

4. Doesn't matter to me, I thank those folks and absent other offers, not much complaining folks should do. 

5. Doesn't matter 

6. Does not matter to me. 

7. locations convenient to hub cities, or places where I already have business to do are nice... price is also nice and apart from the $45 cab ride from the airport this location is pretty good. 

8. The Welcome Party by the Dominican Government was nothing short of outstanding. I felt very welcome and well received. 

9. Stay US/Canada, please.

10. Puerto Rico, Mexico, Boston 

11. different locations and different connectivity are fine with me. 

12. Doesn't matter to me. 

13. tropical is good. 

14. It doesn't matter to me. 

15. I'll go anywhere in the world... Doesn't matter to me.

16. Location generally not important. 

17. Vancouver or Whistler - Summer time please 

18. It does seem that if you pick a location with a lower hotel rate, the food is also less expensive. I'll have to think a bit about this, but I like the fact that NANOG is arranging these further in advance. 

19. Same vendor for connectivity doesn't matter Rhode Island? Carolinas? 

20. North American continent. A mix of west, central, eastern locations (3 meetings a year, one per timezone?) new locations are desirable. I used to think permanent establishments were desirable but not anymore. We need to 'outreach' as a community and facilitate participation of local attendees. 

21. Using some of the same locations semi-regularly might not be harmful and if it lowered cost of operation could be interesting. Though 1 or 2 of the meetings each year should not be in the same regular location. 

22. spread it around geographically, but near airports - I shouldn't spend more in taxis than in airfare 

23. I like the changing locations, even though it must be a pain for the organizers 

24. I don't much care, actually all things being equal I guess I like moving around. 

25. Does not matter to me 

26. Are we locked into marriott? 

27. does not matter

28. doesn't really matter to me 

29. yes

30. I would like Vancouver 

31. Doesn't need to be anchored to some locations but the locations need to be easily accessible. 

32. doesnt really matter so long as the meeting room isnt so cold when its so hot outside 

33. I really like NANOG be in various locations not only in the US. Question is if it is applyable to do a "joint" meeting with RIPE lets say in greenland or other interesting company in between. 

34. Anchor the meeting in Chicago once per year 

35. I like having a meeting outside the US & Canada. I have a slight personal preference for no anchor so I can visit new places all the time, but if it is better for NANOG financially or otherwise, it would not bother me to have one meeting every year in the same location. 

36. i vote for variety 

37. one on the east coast, one on the west coast/middle Why does the hosting/sponsoring always need to be linked to the host/sponsor location? 

38. During winter month, the caribbean islands are just great ... would suggest other locations such as Puerto Rico, Aruba ... 

39. Anywhere US east coast that's not a 100% obvious holiday resort location. 

40. Having the meeting outside the continental US once in a while is a great idea! Santo Domingo might be a good location, but the actual hotel was not. Too remote from beaches/shopping/etc. 

41. Keep spreading it out. I probably won't get to any physical meeting outside the 4 corners states or maybe Oklahoma or Texas. Keep up the audio/video. Do all the rooms, not just the general room. 

42. I think that moving around is a good idea but you can go back to good locations. it is nice if you have it in warm places :-) 

43. Doesn't matter. Taxis are easy. 

44. ease of traveling and good connectivty would be key otherwise location is not important. 

45. Does not matter 

46. Doesn't matter 

47. Major Hub for airtravel would be nice - is from euroland. DR had excellent connections 

48. Should be in the US. 

49. different locations are fine, as long as they're easy/cheap to get to and not overly expensive to stay there.


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)



1. Overall very worthwhile and hope to attend more NANOG's. 

2. Overall very worthwhile and hope to attend more NANOG's. 

3. I think, on balance, you worked hard to make a meeting in a difficult venue work 

4. pictures on the attendee list would help greatly to get in contact with people you don't know yet 

5. Nice work, as usual. I appreciate it! 

6. I strongly request to have a fun session. Dr is so nice, but we did not have time to watch anything. One afternoon should hae been kept for watching the beach.

7. Please make music at socials/etc quieter. We are here to talk, music to LOUD! Thank you to all for organizing, etc.!!! 

8. It seems that more might have been done to support cross-pollination with the Latin community, or with LACNIC members. In addition, it might have been nice to have Spanish language translators during the meeting to provide English-to-Spanish translation for Spanish speaking attendees. 

9. Supplemental to my previous survey entry: I really really really wanted to like K Sriram's talk but the lightning speed it was presented at and the monotone delivery combined with all the eye-charts made it pretty much a no-op. I understand there's not much the PC could have done about the monotone delivery but I would think the other issues could be anticipated -- 31 slides with lots of words and graphics in 30 minutes? Everyone knows that's absurd. I think the PC could have anticipated and avoided this particular train wreck, either by declining the talk or better, by working with the presenter to fix it. 

10. Ripe, Apricot provide more value for lower conference fees. 

11. Merit staff are awesome. Nice to meet Gail 

12. I believe I have already done that. 

13. Where's the done button? 

14. Thanks for your effots. 

15. I would like to be participate in the next survey design. (Sylvie L). It would be nice to be able to comment after each event. I just realised how much i 'forget' my impressions after 3 days and we are missing out on feedback. the survey takes agood 20 min to fill when you put feedback. we tend to fasttrack the last questions. 

16. we didn't mix with the 1st time nanog attendees or the locals. newbie breakfast attempted this but we need to talk face to face with them perhaps to know them, to find common ground and why we SHOULD talk with each other. Hard to do that when the entire time is people standing up introducing themselves. We need to find a better way to lead this to face to face interactions. 

17. Thanks for al of the hard wor. The smoothness of the event shows how much effort went in beforehand. 

18. Did I mention that the smoky casino thing really sucked? 

19. N/A

20. Todd Underwood is a genious and that "packet fabric" thing is awesome. 

21. The party on Monday night was a huge disappointment. I'd hoped to talk with some of the Domincan Government representatives. The volume of noise was prohibitive, and assaulting - I had to retreat to the river side of the Palace after about 1 minute of noise. Then we left entirely and found a restaurant across the yard. Great venue, enjoyed the opportunity to see the Palace, local dance and music are fine - but we come to Nanog to talk to each other, and so volume needs to be low and background, else the party is a waste.

22. Yes: the meeting schedule could be printed on the back of the name card (RIPE MEeting started doing that) and laminted the card. I found this very useful. 

23. Thanks for posting the next meeting dates and locations so that I can start planning on attending those

24. plan further ahead no more than 2 meetings a year 

25. How about timezones added to your start time question? Not applicable if onsite, but for us who must view remote it matters. btw I referenced CST. 

26. keep up the good work! :-) 

27. It was nice to see the multicast work in HD.



^ Back to Top