NANOG25 Survey Results

Toronto, Canada

Attendee Survey Results

BOF Sessions

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

Name	Topic		Detail		Speaker		Comments
	# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.	# Res.	Avg.
NANOG BOF	14	1.57	14	2.29	14	2.29	6 comments
Peering BOF	47	1.41	47	1.78	47	1.50	15 comments

 

Other Questions
 

	Yes	No
1st time at NANOG?	40	77

 

Your organization interested in hosting?

No Responses

Do you have suggestions for future NANOG presentations?  (Topics, and/or speakers)
 
What worked well and what should be improved for the next NANOG?
 

Other Meetings attended:
(Numbers represent total number of tuimes attended for all respondents)

IETF 74 RIPE 26 APRICOT 19 APNIC 6 ARIN 4 INET 9 USENIX 4 MLPS 1

InterOp 5 ICANN 4 LACNIC 2 JANOG 20 AfNOG 4 NordNOG 1 Other 1 FIRST 13 Unspecified 6 SwiNOG 2 NLANT/I2 Jt Techs 1 sigcomm 1 OLS 1 Telemanagement World 1 residential networking at Universities, Cabling/Fiber networking

	Yes	No
Conflicts?	10	96

Suggestions for future NANOG presentations?
 

- choices for sessions instead of one big general session- Lunch should be provided

- Perhaps a BOF, as its somewhat off topic. I think the discussion on the nanog list about educational backgrounds vs certifications was interesting.

a little less vendor junk...

A multiple source update panel, IETF, ARIN, etc lasting no more than 30-45 minutes. This should simply be an overview. An idea such as this was discussed at the NANOG BOF.

Aaron Britt mentioned in his talk todayabout what he's found for black holes& routing loops.Always a good topic.

advanced bgp techniques

Back to Canada!

BGP, traffic engineering, measurements

Chicago or some place in the mid west.

High Availability on the edge as well to achieve network availability to 99.999IPv6 discussion and tutorials

High availability/NSF/Graceful Restart

How about something on bankruptcy - how to file and how to buy bankrupt companies?

I'd be glad to see continued BGP and intelligent routing topics on the agenda

I'd like to see more people talk about Internet Data Centers, a critical part of my business.I would also like to see more of what I like to call "Internet geography", meaning not only the physical layer of fiber paths and how we as operators actually connect our networks at gateways or other types of facilities, but also the logical layers made up of SONET/GbE speaking devices and BGP speaking devices.Participation from companies like Level-3 or MFN would be extremely beneficial for something like this (for me, at least).BGP security, ARIN security, and IRR security concepts are critical for the Internet to continue to succeed.They can never be talked about enough.I've seen presentations on BGP security, but not very much on the latter topics, especially recently.I would like to see more on IPv6 and multicast, but at higher levels (not introductory), in particular from vendors working on scaling and stablizing these technologies so that operators can build business cases and planning/design so these technologies can become more widespread due to real world network implementations.

If the attendance grows and continues getting more diverse it might be worth attempting to schedule multiple tracks so more technical/theoretical presentations could be kept separate from panel discussions and invited talks by industry and vendors.

Introduction to MPLS (practical examples) - perhaps it might make the MPLS topic in every other presentation more understandable.Panel discussions between network operators, not vendors. There are enough trade shows already.

IPv6, IETF issues

IPv6, troubleshooting BGP meltdowns, more IRR stuff (like, percentage of objects which are accurate)

ISP Security Tutorial would be good. At101 level rather than complex detail.

it strikes me that you have a numberof old-school (very experienced) peopleattending.often the only time we hearfrom them is during Q&A.I'd like tohear from them more.maybe you could have something likean "open mic" ask the experts panel.

It would be really nice to have the wireless network stay up until the next morning after the show ends (i.e. until Wednesday this time).

L2 anything3Gmetro ethernet (I think this was done few nanogs ago).

Less vendors, more "Operators"...

Make panel discussions more a discussion and less 3 presentations in a row on the same topic.

more information about securitypossible speaker: Merike Kaeo

more on IPv6, more on making internet infrastructure better, ie dns (for/rev),more on movements in internet protocols (the good the bad the ugly), more on security (Cert, csirt etc)

more on IPv6, more on making internet infrastructure better, ie dns (for/rev),more on movements in internet protocols (the good the bad the ugly), more on security (Cert, csirt etc)

More technically challenging presentation

N/A

Network Availability through Change Management Best Practises"Network Characterization via lab modelling""Statistical Network Analysis for NetOperators 101"More Traffic Engineering topics.More security topics

new speakers, go outside normal pool - more vendor booths at beer & gear (more Ts!), different vendors - some more info on the hosting town, ideas for going out before/during/after

next gen performance monitoring (e.g. more of the smart networking technologies whichwas really great)"one big network egg in one big basket" vs "many small eggs in many baskets"... ie network design. aka one big "do everything router" vs many small specialized routers. e.g. the affect of pretty network designs on actual real world operational issues.

no more MPLS in any way/shape/formexplore other tunneling methods (eg Cisco-UTI)

No.

Nope.

One of the reasons that I attended NANOG was to hear about solutions that providers found that would be applicable to the community at large. I also was hoping to hear more debate about the current problems (from the provider - not vendor - perspective). I would suggest that considering the number of vendors in the audience, a panel of providers, discussing current problems & hot topics, and organized much like the smart routing panel, would not only be interesting, but useful for all at attendance.It may be interesting, considering the comments about the lack of decent network management tools, to have an OSS panel (please note that I am biased this way, since I'm a OSS guy).Provider case studies on new technology deployment are always interesting.Beer&Gear presentations by vendors (2-3 minutes each to introduce their stuff).In summary, more debate, more case studies, more panels.

OPERATIONAL experiences of providers (willing to make such presentations, presuming they are capable of sanitizing their presentations sufficiently enough without compromising the value of them).

Security related topics

session4

Some topics I'd like to see:Wireless Networking,VoIP, Simple and Advanced Network Design - CONS AND PROS,Network Career Advancement - What employers look for in a Network Analyst/Tech/Engineer, especially in an ever evolving global network.Whats wrong with OSPF after BGP? - Dont complain about how hard it is to configure, just suck it up and deal!

Standards for panel moderation (for preparation, organization, rules on vendor-promotion.How about a section on current service provider issues and how they're dealing with them?

Next Gen Products with strong economic argument for use todayDon't do multiple tracks - I only have one body, but if you do tracks, make sure the tracks are mutually exclusive. example: Tier 1 Interconnection in one track, Tier 2 Interconnection in the other

The presentation schedule should havea higher degree of parallelism. Allof the presentations and panels couldprobably be held in a day and half ifthis were done.

The topics should address both current and future methodologies.Again, few people addressed the difference in economy and therefore were not addressing the mojority of the audience.Keeping in mind that most od the audience are with smaller companies, routing issues are rarely addresses to all sizes.. Most speakers address the few very large routing issues because they are unique and diffucult to deal with.

There should be more presentations from users and less research/RFC-oriented ones.

troubleshooting mpls in an ISP

tutorial on mpls

Would like to see move VoIP oriented presentations, seems to not be a topic that covered much even with multiple major carriers running VoIP on their networks in today's market.

You need to add at least one "lively" speaker

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

Suggestions for future NANOGs?
 
 

1-Put the special and funny video on the web site.2-more BOF

1st presenters on Monday morning have to be dynamic/speak english well to kick things off on the right foot - the smaller rooms did not work well, the pillars got in the way - network performed great!

A lot of stuff for only a day and a half

All worked well. Hotel restaurant/bar service waspretty poor though. And the ballroom wasfar too cold, even with the several requeststo have the temperature raised.

As usual, the meeting execution and organization was great. Congrats on completing the 25th meeting.More reminders about cell phones? :) Seemed like phones were going off all the time.

AV still a problem.More Peering BOFs and like mixers - this forum is very important as a chance to meet and discuss common problems.

Beer & Gear worked well.This probably 'influenced' the Peering BoFto go pretty well... :-)

better coverage of 802.11 in bedrooms.an external aerial can cover almostall bedrooms if done right.the venue kinda sucked. I guess it wascheapthe vendors at beer&gear were ok, butcan somebody gently suggest that more'relevant' give-aways might be toolsor widgets which are useful like passive USB hubs, laptop lights, etcwhich are all comparable in cost to some of the things they ploy

Better location (non-suburban).Less of a product/marketing spin in some of the talks (e.g., Avici talk/panel)

Better pannels this time, better topics than last time.

Better wireless coverage. Cover the rooms, the Las Vegas ARIN convention is a good example of excellant coverage.

break area was too crowded, neededto be spread out more.

breakfast is greatnetwork finetalk interesting

Can the size of the slides in the HTML be increased?The current 320x240 is hard toread on a 1024x768 screen and a lot of detail is lost.

cheaper hotel worked well. Canada was a nice area, and also lower cost than most US tourist spots. Wireless worked well, even in Best Western.

Connectivity was good.

Core Network Design and Vendor Prophecies was way, way way too ful of marketing fluff. a bad way to start the conference.

Dissapointed that most of the presentations were more vendor propheses, rather than real-world examples of how network operators use the technologies.Would have been better to a hotel with connectivity to the room. If they can't do ethernet to the room, how about dial-in on a hotel extension?Too much detail about the theory of internals of routing protocols - this sounds to me more like what should be at IETF. I expect NANOG to be more about applications of protocols, not how the work.

Enjoy the group setting. Would prefer less entry level tutorials on the opening night.

Experimental story....what we do,what we did...

fix the wireless to be denser and cover a greater area.eliminate wired connectivity, instead focusing on improving the wireless.more AP's, larger antennas/amps, etc.

For my first NANOG I have to say that i really enjoyed all of it.

Got to see some folks. I would suggest that you concentrate of ISP producates and not enterprise...

Hmmm. More exciting speakers first thing in the morning and after lunch. ... or stronger coffee.

I believe that the location for this conference was well chosen. The hotel is very good and the locale is great. Many things to do after listening to speakers and attending presentations in the city.I believe what didn't work well is the assumption that every attendee is an expert in the topics discussed and that everyone IS a previous NANOG conference attendee.Seeing that this a conference, not a convention, many opinions were super-imposed as being the albeit answer and research study in a field/topic.Many presenters made presentations what it would NOT be and not what it SHOULD be, ultimately changing it.This is very frustrating.Not everyone is an expert in their field or experts in EVERY field.I believe this conference would of been more beneficial if the opposite assumption was made and the obvious basic information about topics were quickly reviewed.Also, previous presenters should not make the assumption that everyone in the room attended the previous NANOG meeting. How do new attendees know what took place at the last conference? Why should the last topic discussed at a previous conference continue exactly where it left of at the new conference? Why should it even be discussed at such lengths and difficulty level ?

i enjoyed the tutorials.The variety of presentations helped.Having Internet access was a bonus.

I filled out another survey, but forgot this:could you please let the network stay up a bit longer?I know everyone wants to leave, but maybe 'till wednesday or something.also, there was no wireless coverage in the best western, which would have been nice.thanks again for a great conference :)-David Barak

I like it just the way it is.It would have been nice to have the location downtown, but I suppose cost is an issue.

I liked ipv6 in the nanog network, and network services worked well.Ren's Niagra trip was great!! events like this should be encouraged!o.k. these are the bad points you need to fix!!o the hotel was NOT prepared for the influx. The service was BAD. Did I say the service was bad??o the venue itself was not (i think) well chosen - i fully understand that you have capacity requirements. but the hotel was in the middle of NOWHERE!!o it made it very difficult for off-site evening get-togethers. Sight seeing was then reduced.o don't have anything after the beer-n-gear.. it is far better to stay and chat, and eat than run off to a bof or other event. Besides, with 6 beers the value of intelligent feedback at a bof is going to limited.otherwise it's o.k..I look forward to the joint arin/nanog meeting.

I liked ipv6 in the nanog network, and network services worked well.Ren's Niagra trip was great!! events like this should be encouraged!o.k. these are the bad points you need to fix!!o the hotel was NOT prepared for the influx. The service was BAD. Did I say the service was bad??o the venue itself was not (i think) well chosen - i fully understand that you have capacity requirements. but the hotel was in the middle of NOWHERE!!o it made it very difficult for off-site evening get-togethers. Sight seeing was then reduced.o don't have anything after the beer-n-gear.. it is far better to stay and chat, and eat than run off to a bof or other event. Besides, with 6 beers the value of intelligent feedback at a bof is going to limited.otherwise it's o.k..I look forward to the joint arin/nanog meeting.oops sorry.. already submitted one, but have an addition. The COnferance room was way too cold!!!!!

I liked the number and quality of the wireless cards, but there was no coverage in the Best Western Half of the hotel.I think that the whole hotel area should be covered.

i look forward to the combined meeting with ARIN.

I think the focus on intelligent routing and BGP traffic engineering/communities was very refreshing.That's probably just because it's my specific area interest.:)

I think the material has veered too far from what is useful to service providers (not just ISPs).As a vendor, I didn't mind the vendor presentations, but it was a bit over-done.

I'd like to have shorter, but more Sunday sessions, and more evening BOF's for both Sunday and Monday.Both work extremely well as-is and that's why I would like to see them even more significantly improved.There is an impression that there are not enough seats or screens, but I think you are doing a good job and making a difficult task work well enough to not complain about.

It would be helpful if the local-host can tip off the eateries around the venue that a large "un-catered" conference is in town, so they can prepare.It seemed that most of the local cafes and restaurants were not too well prepared for the large tables which descended on them, expecting to be fed and watered inside of 90 minutes.Maybe lunches are usually fairly quiet around here?I guess the other option is to provide buffet lunches at the hotel?

Location had zero ammenities, and was in the middle of nowhere (maybe past the middle, and at the edge of nowhere)40 dollar cab ride to get downtown is a bit extreme.

Location with skiing

Logistically all was fine onceat the hotel.Wished the hotel was closer tothe airport.

Make presentations available before the session.Put URL for the survey on the slide.Provide an off-line alternative for people who want to fill out the survey, but don't have a laptop.

Make sure power is available for the tutorials.

Make sure you put all of the presentations onlineahead of time.It seems particularly bad this time,several are missing or incomplete, or have old versionsthat are not the same as what is being presented.

microphone setting

More non-vendor specific presentations would be great.

More of the same. I think it worked very well.

N/A

NANOG is great, and has the best S/N ratio in the industry. My main point of improvement would be to charge moderators with coordinating panelist's presentations better, to avoid so much repatition in presentations.

Network infrastructure was good.Some presentations were good, some not so good.In particular all the panels were very repetative - just one or two panelists at most would have been sufficient - the others were just repeating what had already been said.More participation from the floor would have been nice - I was amazed there were so few questions and the speakers were rarely challenged, even on potentially contraversial points.

No critical issues to comment at thistime.

Overall logistics and arrangements by GT seemed pretty good.Wireless worked well in the meeting room, but seemed a little spotty elsewhere - but the hotel was a little "sprawly".Good choice of refreshments at break times.Longer (~30min) coffee breaks would be good, allows more time for hallway chat.

Overall NANOG was really good this time.It's unfortunatre that the conference sitewas so removed from Toronto proper, but maybe that couldn't be helped.

Please render powerpoint slides into larger slides.More than half of the powerpoint slides end up being rendered as 320x240 gif's and are completely unreadable.From the inspection of the generated HTML, size appears to be a powerpoint option.

Routing focus was great.Susan's summary at the begining of the smart routing session was very good. So was the overall session.It would have been good to have someone summarize the importance of Nick's presentation for the audience -- not sure if they got it.

running sessions straight intobeer-n-gear straight into BOFs meakesit VERY difficult to get dinners done.

Slightly more informal on-site BOF setup (ala Usenix) might help (assuming more smaller rooms are available during the evening).More Canadian dates are always a good thing too!

Sue Hares's moderation and preparation of the "Smart Routing" Panel was excellent!! She helped the panel to be very focussed and interesting and kept it rolling along.

The combination of ARIN should turn out well.I personally would like to see some people address the larger pictures.For example in the smart routing panel, layer 4 is never addressed.There are no conferences that address all layers.. There is only nanog and LISA.Neither of which ever hit the whole encompasing picture.(I do understand not all people are well rounded enough to be interested), although it might be good to try something in combination in a BOF.

The facility and network access are excellent.

The hotel is too far out of the way, but the gym is wonderful! Also, everyone at the hotel is really nice, and the rooms are surprisingly nice.

The location should defintely be chosen to be somewhere that is not out in the middle of nowhere.There should probably be a separate mailing list, such as nanog-meeting (with open membership, not just attendees) for people to discuss non-operational content.

The location worked well.;)It seems like every conference is in the states somewhere, and it was nice to have it north of the border.The length of the conference could be a bit longer -- we were always running behind schedule and hurrying up.

The overall format was excellent. The panel on "Smart Routing" was a great example that demonstrated when substantial effort is put into a panel, the results can be quite good.I would suggest encouraging a similar filter on future presentations (whether vendor or non-vendor). Also, it is obvious that good speakers can make bad material interesting and bad speakers can kill even great presentations.Really technical presentations shouldn't be made first thing after lunch.

The panel discussing the economic differencesbetween transit and peering exchangesshould have had more panelists. Itprobably should have been run as a BOF.

The panel discussions worked well and were very informative.

The room was way too cold. Also, the hotel staff must have been under strict orders to only recommend the restaurants in the hotel (which would not accomodate 500+ people). It would have been better to be located in the city of Toronto.

The session on Smart Routing Technologies was phenominal.The preparation that Sue Hare did to compare and contrast the vendors was incredably useful.The Sunday tutorial on BGP techniques dovetailed nicely with the presentation on redistribution Communities the next day.Unfortunately for Nick Feamster, both completely obviated his limited-scope talk on import policies.

The wireless network seemed to work as soon as I arrived on Sunday. thanks

There was too little focus on real-world networking experiences and problems.The first day amounted to a series of sales pitch (masked by the term Vendor Prophecies) and a series of Academic presentations (both in terms of the presenters and the obvious nature of the content).Certainly I can appreciate the fact that all of these presentations are voluntarily presented and prepared, but there seems an obvious difference in perspective between production NOs and academic NOs which surely wasn't bridged, in my opinion, at this NANOG.

Things immediately relevant to operations are of course useful, andit's good to get a heads-up about things further in the future as well.

Things that were bad:Scott Poretsky talks were execrable, insulted the intelligence of the audience and wasted time."Future routing" panel was poor, moderator should have reviewed presos in advanced and exerted some editorial control.Smart routing panel went much better.

This location was horrible.Very distant from the airport and hard to reach from Downtown.

This might not be possible, but have the people pre-present before they actually present, so that they can be less nervous and/or figure out how long their presentations really are.The topics presented sounded great, until they were actually presented.I wanted to wimper out loud in pain because some of them were so boring/bad.

Thought that the smart routing panel was well organized and provided good level of information about the technical approaches by the various vendors.

Toronto is great locationhowever the hotel location was not in the best area.The meeting should have been down town.

Well: pure technology briefings (e.g., Villamizar on Convergence and Restoration techniques, well-run panel (Susan Hares' on Smart Routing).Well: presentations on BGP security issues (Barry Greene, Avi Friedman)Sh'd be improved: Vendor panel (Danny McPherson's) - was not well orchestrated, was terribly redundant and not interesting in terms of actual network architecture, was too self-promoting on part of vendors.Sh'd be improved: peering BoF (Bill Norton's) - should've focused more on real peering issues (asymmetries, abuses, over-restrictive policies, benefits of peering, progress on future models for settlements, etc.

Wireless connections were unreliable in the tutorial/BOF rooms.

Wireless issues as always/usual. There seems to be the same errors in wireless setup made at each NANOG due to lack of knowledge from the host on how to handle such a large wireless network.

Wireless was working when I arrived on Saturday evening. It seemed to be more reliable than at other meetings.Room rates where -very- reasonable and the place was clean/nice.Investigate providing wireless in a portion of the hotel rooms. I would pay $10-$20 extra to have wireless in my room for the duration. Maybe certain floors could be set up with wireless and charged a higher room rate to cover the cost.

Wireless worked Well! (although better information on how to configure would be nice, perhaps with the Static IP address tag)

Worked well:- good snacks and breakfast- good internet connectivity- good technical sessionsDidn't work:- panel sessions were boring- speakers were obviously not used to speaking.

IP Traffic Management: Measurement, Analysis, and Optimization

Comments:

Content was very good, I'm sure we will see more of these with the current market situation as an ROI/cost saving option. Would be nice to mix more research and operational (studies vs actual live networks). I hope there will be a followup

depended a lot on having been at the tutorial at the last nanog

Don't like the marketing session IXIA masked as an educational one

Great subject, could have gone into more technical detail on how to actually accomplish this.Most of the speakers were well prepared.

the presentation spent too much timejustifying its purpose, which takes time away from the important parts. Ithink its safe to assume that audiencemembers know why they should be measuring their network ** they just want to know how to do it.

The topic, although very pertinent and interesting, was very misleading.The word tutorial suggests some sort of learning involved, doesn't it? I must apologize in advance for being a novist, but isn't thepoint of coming to conferences is to learn new things, meet people and, albeit at times boring, reinforce stuff you may be an expert about already (and if so teach others)?I find it very hard to believe that I am the only person who didn't understand most of the speeches that were presented in this tutorial. These tutorials should of been presented as advanced topics during the main conference.I do ask for future attendees that you really think about what you call Tutorials.If saying the obvious about a topic or restating fundamental basics about a topic feel repetative, then "Practice makes perfect".

There should be more this type of user presentations.

This presentation makes the Sunday sessions really worth coming to.

Topic was a bit over my head, but interesting. The BGP tutorial might havebeen more informative and more immediately useful for me.

Introduction to RSPL

Comments:
 
 

He spent too much time with the introductory pieces that the security piece was more rushed and ran over.

needed more time

Some of the real*world operational stuff was saved for the very end, I wish that had been earlier.

The slides were pretty good, but thespeaker's pace of presentation was very,very slow.It just plodded along.

Too much material for the length of the tutorial.Ambrose sounded like he knew what he was talking about, but that the project was a bit too large to tackle in that time period.

Was a good intro, but I went to get a refresher, and it was moving too slow.It might be good to have some survay and refresher type tutorials, that have an assumption of some familiarity, as well as having the intro type things.

Peering BOF

Comments:

Although there are many instances for companies to earn business from attendees here, I find it very un*professional for attendees and sponsors to use the Attendee list posted in the NANOG homepage to gain information about a company an attendee works for beforehand to try to gain there business.Throughout this break out session I was constantly bothered for my Autonomous System Number and ISP information as well as co*workers and managers responsible for making peerings happen. This is totally unacceptable and attrocious professional behavior.I do want to add that these session was somewhat useful

As always, a usefull BOF

Bill always does a great job * this should be NANOG regular event * Bill has to learn some new jokes!

Bill is "the" master moderator of the peering BOF. :)

Bill seemed to loose the audience this time.IMHO, he should have addressed the changes in the econmy and how that effects peering.Additionally, the peering BOF seems to have turned into people introducing themselves to each other, with no real explination as to why.For those who were new to a peering BOF they would have needed a prereq just to get the jist.My suggestion for Bill is, go back to the basics and remember that he will always have folks who are new to peering.. Those who know how to peer already do not really need his BOF.They are simply there to help those who are new.

don't have two bof's at the same time like this; i would have liked to attend both.

Good as ever!

Good mixer

Met interesting people, may peer with some of them.

Need to encourage more 'small guys'

open BOF good.conflicting important BOFs bad.

Should present the peering BOF at lease 1 a year.

This is an extremely good idea, that should be repeated OFTEN.

This was good. Is ti no longer a BOF if some little fish are too indignant about big fish being not interested in peering with them?

was fun.I learned a lot about the different ISPs (stuff you can't find on the Websites).Even though I'm not involved with peering directly, this was excellent.

What Do You Want Out of NANOG? BOF

Comments:

Hope you take the suggestions :*)

Important topic.Much of the session seemed to be a conversation between insiders with only limited participation by others.

Interesting to sit in on this at my firstNANOG.

should be repeated, but with more structure.

This was my first NANOG ... As such, I was prepared/comfortable enough to participate further, since I wasn't sure what was inbounds and what was out of bounds. Now that the conference is over and I've had a chance to reflect on the presentations and the interactions for the last few days, I have a better sense of how better to participate.I am not sure if there is a way to encourage 1st timers to better participate. One ideas that was presented during the BOF was an 'open mike'. Another idea may be to give anecdotal examples of acceptable participation during the opening addresses (plus healthy doses of encouraging additional questions) as a way to encourage bi-directional participation.

Deploying Tight-SLA Services on an Internet Backbone: ISIS Fast Convergence and Differentiated Services Design

Comments:
 
 

Excellent analysis of an issue directly affecting service provision

extremely good presenter ** made a long presentation worthwhile

I was very interested in the Diff*serve topic, but the emphasis was elsewhere.

more time wouldve been wonderful for this one.

The presentation was all "How to tune Cisco IOS for Tight SLA services" I would have preferred a more general presentation

well reseearched, very detailed

Conflicts in Meetings or Other

Comments:
 

major holidays - ie people with children may only be at the nanog-half of the eugene combined meeting due to haloween.
the combined arin-nanog meeting is a Good Thing.

 Feb (too close to Valentine's Day)
Oct (this year, during Halloween?!?!?!  I've got kids; and, of course, they win).

The next meeting clashes with ICANN in shanghai :-(

nternet2 connected meetings.

NANOG-24 due to workload

Work related conflict - not meeting overlap.

 I may not be able to budget to follow NANOG around, but having it local-to-me was a very good opportunity.

BGP Techniques for Service Providers

Comments:

1:30

An excellent topic. However the case studies could have been more analyitical.

great speaker, bring him back for more if possible

i thought there was a fair amount of misinformation presented

I was expecting something of a more advanced tutorial, but it was an excellent presentation for the level that it was designed for.It also gave me some good ideas on how to present similar materials within my company.

I was the speaker, improper for me to comment ;*)

I was thoroughly impressed with the content and method of delivery, it was clear and concise.

It was a bit too basic. The first half was really review for ACRC or CCNA level ... the 2nd half was much better. My suggestion would be to expand the 2nd half into the entire session and deal a bit more with general internet routing issues.

Learned more about BGP in one afternoon than from the past several months of working with it.

Phil covered some basic BGP material on communities, confederations etc., and then fell back on his much used 'how to multi*home' slides.I think the problem is that these tutorials are too long.1/2 day is my absorption limit.Doing 1/2 day tutorials would probably get you more volunteers and a wider selection of material.

Presentation does not appear to be available in PDF format * only HTML. I would like to be able to download the entire presentation and go over it in more detail.

Timing..but he knew he spent too long on the first portion and needed to go quickly during the last part.

too much basic background material.2nd half was very interesting, but speaker went through it much too fast, because he spent all his time on basic background.

Very good presentation. Lots of stuff. Too bad he ran out of time.

wasn't really bad... wasn't really amazing though either

Would have liked to see a depiction of the database fields instead of just the forms. It would have provided some better understanding of how the items linked together.