Number of responses:  150
 
 

Tutorials

(# Res. = Number of responses) (Avg. = Average from responses) (Scale: 1 = Excellent, 5 = Unsatisfactory)
 

Time	Name	Topic		Detail		Speaker		Comments
		# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.
1:30 PM
	IP Routing Protocol Scalability	40	1.5	40	2	39	2.1	12 comments
	ISP Security	34	1.5	34	2	34	1.9	10 comments
3:30 PM
	IP Routing Protocol Scalability	36	1.4	36	1.8	36	1.9	4 comments
	ISP Security	34	1.5	34	1.9	34	1.7	2 comments
7:30 PM
	BGP Multihoming Guide	21	1.5	21	1.8	21	1.6	6 comments
	Packets and Photons	26	1.9	26	2.8	26	2.7	15 comments

 

Breakout Sessions

(# Res. = Number of responses) (Avg. = Average from responses) (Scale: 1 = Excellent, 5 = Unsatisfactory)
 

Time	Name	Topic		Detail		Speaker		Comments
7:30 PM		# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.
	Data Center Peering	60	1.4	59	1.7	59	1.3	26 comments
	Testbed for Evaluating DDoS	14	2.1	14	2.6	14	2.2	6 comments

 

Other Questions
 

	Yes	No
1st time at NANOG?	53	93
Your organization interested in hosting?	12	92	Contact Info

Why are you here?
 

		Topic	# Responses
	For Operators
		See new hardware?	18
		Discuss new knobs?	38
		Hear BCP presentations?	72
		Hear backbone technology presentations?	93
		Meet other operators?	81
		Meet other vendors?	20
		Other?	27
		Explain
	For Vendors
		Meet customers?	17
		Gauge demand for product?	20
		Quietly pitch product?	9
		Hear backbone technology presentations?	29
		Other?	2
		Explain

 

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

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

Comments:
 

The speaker didn't have detailed knowledge of the presentation.

Lack of experience in optical networking from presenter

The slides were weak in detail and the primary speaker were was not hereto give the talk so this great topic was botched. Felt more like a Juniper marketing pitch.

Substitute speaker skipped or couldn't explain significant parts of content.

The talk was a bit more theoretical than I preferred.If it was a little more introductory I would've been able to follow it better.

The speaker was not able to address most questions from the audience, which were very relevant.

no slides available

Speaker could not answer technical questions. Looked like a marketing pitch rather than a serious presentation.

Great! Though I didn't understand everything I got a good idea of what's in the pipe.

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

I really wish we'd had the two back-to-back sessions for this, there was so much more detail I would have *loved* for them to have been able to delve more into depth on many of the points. Having the slides up would have been very nice to follow along, too, given the shorter time frame.

the presentation stayed at a pretty high, abstract level.Would be more informative if diving down a little more.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

The presentation was too dry, and was too much of a marketing pitch. More coverge of other competing technologies such as QoS routing could have made the presentation more worth while.

I wish i had gone to the packet and photons one, it sounded interesting.

For Operator Comments:
 

A mix of: hardware, BCP's, technology, ideas, friends.

Peering.Contacts, NAP information.

More diverse subject matter.Too much MPLS and Ddos talks

Just to learn as much as possible, and meet as many of the NANOG Regulars as possible.

Meeting people, getting business done, having beer, learning new things

To contribute to the NANOG community through presentation on security trends. Also to meet people and remain in touch with issues facing network operators.

I came to see what new hardware is supporting, what other operators are wanting, and what is changing in our evolving networks and fundamental designs.

meet perring people

Nanog is the best confernece to go to meet other operators

Rub elbows trade war stories etc.

This isn't a question you can select one answer to.Myself I came here to try to put some faces to names.Meeting people you work with is a great thing. In addition, I came here to attempt to learn what was going on in the community right now.

Learn about the issues other operators are facing and determine areas we can work together. "Networking" in the people sense of the word.

I am pls to spack wit San Francisco and not attend NANOG.

I am here to have fun with my fellow friends in the community

Drink beer

Provide multicast feeds

I run an R&E network.NANOG keeps me in touch with the "real world" problems and solutions.

To know how to solve problems, it is interesting to meet vendors and discuss these issues.

To understand the state of affairs on the internet and to learn as much as I can.

NANOG is the only place I can avoid vendors and get real information without commercial spiels.

The presentations on the state of BGP is directly relevant to PCH's research interests.We also used the opportunity to solicit input on current practices by core ISPs outside of the presentations themselves.

Lets me have fun with other geeks, and reminds me why so much of my life is devoted to networking.:)

As a customer of the providers, I wanted to learn more about the problems, solutions and ability of the group to work together.

I come to NANOG in part to find out what others are doing, to figure out what my employer should be doing differently, in part to hear presentations on research that interests me, and in part to network with others I need to talk to to get specific things done.

Have not attended recent meetings, wanted to hear current operational issues as well.

Hear updates from ALL major exchange operators (i.e. not just PAIX).

To meet with other operators which helps me in turn get more peers up.

Comments:

1:30
 

I learned some new techniques which I think are really valuable.

good, good, good, really good

Very informative, and very applicable given the state of the world.

It is important for ISP's to share security techniques; it is good to see NANOG provide the vehicle. I hope it continues to happen at future meetings.

The presentation seemed a bit disorganized.

I enjoyed the real examples that were presented by the ISP

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

Too much focus on router filtering features, and none on other aspects. For example, there could have been some coverage of host security, some of us do hosting too...

The fact that we got to see the backscatter work in the 'lab' set up there was VERY helpful.Good show!

3:30
 

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

Comments:

1:30
 

The speaker tried to cover too much ground in the alloted time. A better focused detailed tutorial would be welcome. Please, this does not mean beginner level.

It would be good to augment the topic with real-world examples to the extent posible

Not very clear explanations at times.

Learned a lot. will mostly profit from it because i learned which new knobs are in the protocols

I found this session to be very informative.

Spoke too fast, but otherwise a well-presented lecture.

Generally very informative.Only negative comment would be having to listen to the many Cisco marketing plugs!

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

I was just torn between the two sessions.Since they were both continued after the break, I couldn't go to both.:(

would like to see more technical depth.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

This type of tutorial is almost always useful.

 

3:30
 

The speaker tried to cover too much ground in the alloted time. A better focused detailed tutorial would be welcome. Please, this does not mean beginner level.

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

I think it could have been listed on the schedule as two halves; IGP, then BGP.If I'd known that going in, I would have done the security session first, then hopped across at the break for the BGP half of the scalability talk.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

Comments:
 

There was a lot of negativisim regarding reason why this could not be done rather than saying that it is needed and thinking out of the box on how to get over the current impedements that everyone kept harping on.A few good nuggests did rise to the surface though.

The BoF produced some useful insights and information sharing between the people in the room. The best idea was the need to bring together people who do lab testing in order to share ideas and produce better labs (e.g., North American Test Network Operators Group - NATNOG ?)

The motiviations for the testbed and the need for operator participation were not clearly articulated.

No consensus could be reached. People in the crowd hijacked the meeting. Speaker had no control. The discussion quickly became circular. Overshot the time limit by a large margin and finally no result to go forward on.

Good topic, bad problem :( tough audience.

Purely a sales pitch for NAI labs, yuck. It wold have been more interesting to have the DDoS vendors or the secure Linux vendors give a talk.

Comments:
 

We will see.

A very useful function to have at a NANOG meeting, but I was disappointed to see many of the larger ISPs missing: AT&T, Level3, Verio, Qwest.net

Needed more tech details.

Can we have this one start at 8 pm next time?Too many folks were not able to get back from dinner meetings with various vendors/customers/peers in time for 7:30.Restaurants move slowly on Monday nights. The Peering BOF has been the most informative session in ages.It would be even better if there were an EIX-style reporting from NAP operators during the afternoon session on Monday.

I think many new peerings agreements were started rolling here!

Should be a regular feature.

My favorite session in NANOG.

Why do we need a BOF for peering coordinators to meet and give a word on why everyone should peer with their ISP?This lecture felt more like a half-party-group-half-get-together that didn't contain any information of useful value to anyone outside of directly needing to expand peering.A much more interesting topic which could've been discussed is peering policies and how they need to evolve to create a more stabalized global environment.

That was a Riot:)

The speaker enjoys having a big show and to sell himself The topic should be worked on more seriously. I probably will do that for Europe

Bill's presentation was great as always. :>

Very cool, where was Telstra?!!!!!

Although a great opportunity to network and listen to other's strategies, however it would be even more beneficial to have a little more structure to the information sharing.Perhaps a written doc. compiled of everyone's strategies and objectives could be compiled for the attendees.

Well-run and extremely useful. As a result of peering relationships initiated at this session, our company can reasonably expect to save in excess of $50k over the next year. This BOF alone paid for Earthlink's attendance.

would like to see this done again. "peering personals" was both entertaining and informative.

The slides (or at least the ones identifying the participating peers should be posted on the web along with contact info for each participant.

As usual, Bill Norton is great!

Subject wasn't really of interest to me.

Peering coordinator inroductions were very helpful, I will volunteer to introduce myself and our peering requirements at the next meeting.

This was the most successful of the Peering BOF's or meeting I've been to. Very positive move to get the broad range of people giving descriptions of their networks. Seems capital markets shrinking are opening peering policies and motivations.(need to lower expense)

As always, Bill Norton is good, but there was some frustration--the number of people talking about their peering policies was fairly extensive, and trying to jot everything down so quickly led to hand cramps--a web page where the info would be made available afterwards would have been cool; even if there was just a page there saying "this will be filled in after the BOF" would have let us bookmark it for later reference...maybe next time around?

It was an excellent venue to meet a variety of peering coordinators and get updates on their policies and locations. This is one of the strong suites of NANOG: the ability to "network" with the people who can help you expand your network. Hat's off to Bill Norton for, though obviously a representative of Equinix, conducting an entirely neutral forum dedicated to BGP peering.

Bill's peering forums continue to be extremely useful, educational, and entertaining.Having people stand up and say what they were looking for in peers is rather useful both in terms of figuring out who to peer with (something currently handled by somebody else in my company) and those of us with an academic interest in how interconnection between networks happens. I understand including peering in the NANOG agenda is somewhat controversial. However, of all the areas of Internet operations, peering seems to be the one where who you know, and hotel bar conversations, is a huge determining factor in the amount and quality of peering it's possible to get.For that purpose, the NANOG conferences, or at least the gathering of the right people that tends to happen at NANOG conferences, is indispensable.

Appropriate timing, of interest to audience, speaker keep audience engaged - evening meetings are difficult.

I have been told that one of the people from Merit told Bill Norton that his presentation was "unprofessional" and that the little green stickers he put on people's cards wasn't a good idea. If this is true, I *extremely* disagree. Frankly, I think the peering BOF was the most useful, informative, funny, laid back, and useful (yes, i'm saying it again) BOF the whole time I've ever gone to NANOG (my first one was NANOG 19).It also made people get together and talk with one another in a friendly fashion. Please have another peering BOF with Bill Norton.It helped me out greatly.

Bill did an excellent job of getting people together.It is often difficult to find the "right" people to talk to when arragning peering agreements.

Comments:
 

The speaker tried to cover too much ground in the alloted time. A better focused detailed tutorial would be welcome. Please, this does not mean beginner level.

I learned a lot from this, and a lot of changed will hopefully be going into our network very soon.

While I did not attend any of these sessions - I _really_ wanted to and plan on attending them at the next NANOG I attend.The topic choices were great.

Very good basic summary of techniques, and presentation of less memory and CPU intensive designs for achieving effective link redundancy and load balancing.

My lack of attendance shouldn't be seen as a strike against the tutorials. I skipped them because I felt they wouldn't teach me much I didn't already know, but a couple of years ago I would have gotten a lot out of them.I think those of us more experienced in this industry are able to make good use of that time in more informal discussions.

Philip's description of BGP implementation was one of the most concise I've heard or read in awhile.He cut right to the point in his presentation.I've already passed his presentation onto a few of my peers to let it trickle down into thier organizations.EXCELLENT! Thanks.

For Vendor Comments:
 

Like hearing about what kinds of nets folks are building (ususally not our customers) and presentation on what kinds of features are needed, what techniques are used to operate today's networks.

understand what's current security issues on the internet. will helping to test router

To understand the developing needs of the ISP community.

rekindle relationships (been out of networking last two years).

Have not attended recent meetings, wanted to hear current operational issues as well.