NANOG: NANOG28 Survey Results

Text Version

Site Map

NANOG F.A.Q.

About NANOG

Meetings

Mailing List

NANOG28 Survey Results

Salt Lake City, Utah

Attendee Survey Results

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one)
Very useful (24) Useful (58) No opinion (3) Not very useful (2) Useless (0)

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare?
Better (11) About the same (34) Worse (8) N/A (30)

How did you like the program (the Monday-Tuesday General Session)?

The choice of topics was:
Well Chosen (18) 1 (47) 2 (12) 3 (7) 4 (0) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (16) 1 (47) 2 (18) 3 (4) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were:
Excellent (21) 1 (40) 2 (20) 3 (4) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory

Please give us your comments on the program.
If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speakers's name.
A lot of vision, relatively few practical details. Exception: Sink Hole talk was very good Panel discussions rambled
Cathy Wittfordt's presentation was outstanding - I wish she had gotten more time.
Did not like the tutorial breakout monday afternoon. Would prefer earlier finish tuesday (and know others who would as well)
Get the agenda out earlier or people can't get the travel approved!!!
Good presentations fromJeff Schaffer (MIT)(Interception) and SBGP/So BGP Panel
Hard to get too much specific information in a short presentation, but the topics were focused enough that it worked.
I don't know... This one just seemed very light on content, and not much happening.
I think the research forum topics on June 2 are kind of weak. Maybe some topics that are more interesting or have more impact on improving ISP operational efficiency/Network performance next time?
I was disappointed by the lack of detail in Barry Greene's presentation on sinkholes. Extra time was available in the session that was wasted
I would be interested in seeing more implementation detail during the presentation of ietf draft proposals.
In general the time per session was too short, people rushed through the slides.
In some cases the time for the presentation was too short and the speaker had to rush through the slides.
Liked the strong focus on security
My first NANOG and it was very useful. The various BGP presentations were very informative.
Pretty good mix of presentations with interesting statistics / compelling information and next-generation protocols and operational work.
Speakers a little better than usual. Topics pretty good but the security focus is getting a bit tedious, albeit important, at this point.
The BGP presentation on security were helpful. More along the same lines. More on MPLS vPNS in future. Missed the peerin BOF this time.
The talk on MPLS diversion was interesting but too late in the afternoon for a technical talk.
Too much similar topics Where's peering? "theme" NANOGs are fine if the agenda comes out well in advance Non-regular NANOG attendees that are security-minded did not have enough notice to book travel
Visible lack of material about IXPs Too much focus on security/infrastructure protection/enforcement
Where's the IX and peering topics?
would be nice to getting moderator or panel chair other than randy. have a feeling that he stifles discussion with his own agenda somehow..

How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (25) 1 (31) 2 (15) 3 (1) 4 (0) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (20) 1 (30) 2 (17) 3 (3) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were:
Excellent (24) 1 (37) 2 (7) 3 (2) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

Please give us your comments on the tutorials.
If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speakers's name.
BGP talk was great; MPLS talk was too high level, no implementation focus
bof
Did not attend
Did not attend
Got alot out of the MPLS and ISP Security tutorial.
I only attended the second half of Phil Smiths BGP multihoming tutorial
I wanted to attend all the tutorial sessions, but couldn't since the BGP session conflicted w/the IPV6 and MPLS sessions.
IPv6 deployment issues (Jeff Doyle) Too basic, didn't resonate with my own experience.
Joe from Juniper was awesome. He did an excellent job.
Multicast was excellent BGP was elementary, should be targeted to expert audience
Phil Smith's BGP Multihoming tutorial was most excellent
Phill Smith is always a pleasure to listen to.
Phillip smith and Jeff Doyle were excellent. It would be very interesting to see a continuation of their presented topics.
Phillip Smith's BGP Multihoming was excellent with lots of good information based on his experiences at uunet.
Sinkhole was useful
The "Introduction to MPLS" tutorial is good. Both the presentation & contents are clear & useful.
The BGP multi-homing given by Phil Smith of Cisco was very good and very informative
The multicast tutorial was informative, if dry (is anything multicast NOT dry?) Perhaps it would be interesting to have a workshop or hands-on type activity -- get a couple vendors and connect things together in useful ways, let people login and poke, ask questions, etc.
Too much focus in interworking in IPv6 tutorial.
Tutorial where to high level; especially the MPLS discussion on sunday. I would have found a discussion on specifically how to implement more useful.

How did you like the BOFs?

The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (26) 1 (20) 2 (11) 3 (1) 4 (0) 5 Poorly Chosen

The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (18) 1 (30) 2 (8) 3 (1) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

The speakers were:
Excellent (23) 1 (25) 2 (9) 3 (0) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory

Please give us your comments on the BOFs.
If you're commenting on a specific talk, be sure to note the title and speakers's name.
Both Rob Thomas and Jim Duncan were very good.
Did not attend
Good idea Do again
Good idea Do again.
I did not attend the BOFs
ISP Sec BOF was good - probably should have been split into 2 sessions for general topics. Rob Thomas is a fantastic speaker.
Netconf BOF had a lively discussion. Perhaps a different room layout would have fostered even more discussion.. having everyone face one direction is okay, but perhaps not the best config possible. This is obviously easier in smaller discussions, as the netconf BOF was.
No IX/peering BOF so had to skip BOFs to get that work done - pulling others away from BOFs
Really enjoyed the security BOF
Rob Enns was a great moderator and presentor.Very dynamic.
Rob Enns was a great moderator/presenter - extremely engaging
Security BOF rocked!
Security BOF was very good I heard good things about the XML BOF
The "ISP Security BOF" was very interesting. A very active group.
The security BOF continues to be good
The security BOF was awesome this time, Thank you Rob Thomas.
The Security BOF was the highlight of my first NANOG experience. Rob Thomas was a very good speaker and the information he shared was very valuable.
Wish I could have attended both. I chose security
XML configuration I had been hoping to get more operational involvement for the netconf But most people in the BOF were vendors. Probably the other BOF was too interesting :)

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

(32) Yes (54) No

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

A lot of good technical presentations on Tuesday, more implementation specifics, less theoretical details. Who CARES if it's vendor specific? I'll stand up there with a Juniper person, a Foundry person and we'll propose specifics for each implementation. Overall, it was very good, this is just an idea to make it better.
All worked well...
Announce program & schedule earlier. Didn't know about Tue. pm sessions until I had already made travel plans. Beer & Gear was too hot and way too noisy - I had to shout to be heard, and that was often not enough. Better to hold outdoors or in a larger room with a higher ceiling
Beer and Gear was great.
Connectivity seemed unreliable - use 802.11g for future wireless networks? VOIP phones in terminal room would be good. Good to have break out sessions from plenary Nice venue
Group related topics to be given on the same day. For example, traffic engineering topics on Monday, other topics on Tuesday
Have the paid attendees vote on the agenda, schedule, and location of the next meeting.
I feel some subject are the same like a "sbgp" thing
It was good to have breakout sessions on Monday instead of a general session all day.
Key signing should be allocated a real slot in the program, rather than "after the BOFs"
Let's not do this in Salt Lake City again. How about Seattle?
Liked beer 'n gear again
Main ballroom layout was useful - chairs were spaced a bit farther apart: useful. Not as many power strips, though, which was a bit challenging in some places. The beer 'n gear could have used a larger room.
Make sure that the Beer-N-Gear room is pre-chilled by the airconditioning before filling it with kit, food warmers and 300 sweaty geeks. Keeping the break-time refreshments available past the break-time was a nice feature. That worked really well. I hate it when the hotel staff clear up (and probably throw away) the food and drinks the second the break "ends". May as well let someone have the benefit of it! The hotel seemed capable of hosting the meeting without too much trouble, and the courtesy shuttle was useful, though the rooms were a bit disappointing.
More specific config examples - Similar to the BGP multihoming tutorial on sun.
PGP key-signing should be performed during the morning break at the front of the main room.
Please make the wireless LAN work better. Else way well organized.
Pretty good logistics this time. Monday network performance was poor - should plan for this and have packet/mac filters available.
Soda & ice available all day (vs. broken down each break)
Stop playing musical laptops.
suggestions
Thankyou for the BGP (wrt bgp security sbgp/sobgp)talks and presentations. However it is a shame to see the attendance numbers are down.
The external network connectivity seemed mediocre at times. On a couple occasions my home site was unreachable, and at others I had very high(~60%) packet loss.
The moderating & logistics are good.
The more opinionated & vocal people who attend & express their ideas & discuss/debate during the sessions - helps everyone.
The people who set up the room, put some of the tables in backwards. The cross braces were in the way of peoples knees.
The projectors in the main room need to be better registered/focused (I am a video engineer so am probably picking nits). The presenters laptop need to be easier to operate.
The sunday movie was a great idea, and the amount of BGP info was great.
The topics flowed well and the was sufficient coverage of each topic.
The vendor presentations at breakfast are a good idea - less crowded than beer & gear
The vendor table/exhibt during the day on Mon (I wasn't there Tue) doesn't seem to be a good fit. I wasn't interested in their material, unlike B&G, and they seemed mostly to be in the way. I hope at futire NANAOG's vendors can not be booked duringt eh day but rather held to B&G.
The wireless network worked very well. The video was great.
The wireless worked remarkably well (under the circumstances) :)
Very well organized
wide room layout works very well and the extra space between chairs at the tables was very nice. good wireless coverage.
Wireless access seemed choppy/congested at times. Enough so that VPN sessions were lost.
wireless access was spotty at times.

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

anything ipv6
bgp, security
Cathy Wittbrodt's "Don't try this at home kids" presentation about @Home at this NANOG was great - if people feel able to share more of this stuff, great.
Equipment/network performance and scalability
I think a panel on research topics (maybe with PMS from OARPA and NSFI designed to solict feedback, would be good
IGP scalability issues should be discussed too. A poorly designed as can impact the rest too beyond some point.
Incident response experiences. Positive experiences with the government (they _do_ happen, perhaps not as often as we might like).
l2tpv3, vpls, and l2vpn - Mark Townsley and Kireeti Kompella
More MPLS VOIP
More on ISP security More on Ipv6
More on traffic engineering(Intra & Inter domains), end to end QOS (Intra & Inter domains)
More specific followups -- lots of problems were presented, can we follow those with 'here's the top 5 things you can do to protect your x.y.z implementations.' So, for example, we ripped BGP apart, and talked about a few future protocols we might someday implement, but what can we do RIGHT NOW? (answers -- receive path acls,vty acls,secure passwords,routine auditing programs to check peering sessions/unauthorized access attempts,MD5 authentication)
Need more diversity. Seemed like everything was about security. Also more about network management and tools.
Network management systems in use by different organizations; identifying common pain points in this area. DNSSEC/where is it/should people care?
Not sure if it has already been covered in a previous meeting since this is only my second meeting; but perhaps a pro/con analysis of running OSPF vs ISIS and vice versa.
operational MPLS implementations
Regular/recurring schedule slots. Have a security slot (or 2...), have a peering/IX slot, have an operational - experience slot, etc...
Rob Thomas
Rob Thomas Security tutorial - Merike Kaeo
We need a tutorial on techniques for securing routers.
Would like to see presentations on spam/abuse issues

If your organization would be interested in hosting a future NANOG meeting, please provide your name and the name of the person we should contact, or feel free to suggest other organizations that would be good hosts for future meetings.

Avi Freedman Traffic Sciences Interested in hosting in Phl, with Rodney's assistance
generals
Hold in more popular place - thus get more people to attend eg: Oakland or Wash DC
Hold in more popular place - thus get more to attend eg: Oakland or Washington DC
I'm still rooting for a NANOG in Seattle some time - I wonder if M$ or NTT/Verio would be willing?
Research Triangle Park area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of North Carolina would be a good venue. I don't know if we can host it, but I'll ask. I'd certainly help whoever would be willing in the area.Thanks for doing a good job (as usual). :-)

Back to the NANOG28 main page.

Print This

Send This

NANOG28 Survey Results

Salt Lake City, Utah Attendee Survey Results

Salt Lake City, Utah

Attendee Survey Results