|
« NANOG29 Home
NANOG29 Survey Results
Chicago, Illinois
Attendee Survey Results
Your comments and suggestions will help us plan future meetings.
Thank you!
Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one)
Very useful (65) Useful (130) No opinion (3) Not very
useful (4) Useless (0)
If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG
compare?
Better (46) About the same (64) Worse (3) N/A (80)
How did you like the program (the
Monday-Tuesday General Session)?
The choice of topics was:
Well Chosen (65) 1 (112) 2 (19) 3 (4) 4 (0) 5
Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (50) 1 (99) 2 (45) 3 (7) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (45) 1 (122) 2 (32) 3 (1) 4 (0) 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.
| 80%
of the presenations were too high-level. The
content was just not there. In
addition, the security "surprise" was not well received.
Public humiliation can be effective, but only if it's
supported by explanations of the right way to do things.
This was absent. |
| aside from the way the
APs were setup (bad for windowsXP users) this was the best Nanog yet. |
| Danny McPherson, vijay
gill were outstanding. network security talks were generally very weak,
especially NSA talk. |
| Excellent job handing
the Verising fiasco |
| Good focus on security. |
| Great program. Hope that I can attend a hole lot more. |
| Great program....
would have like to "hear" how ISPs dealt with the recent
worms and viruses. Do they oversized
pipes/cpu/etc, or are the helpdesks having to manage getting consumer
PC's cleaned, or are they just disabling the cumsumers' connection?/ |
| I had to think about it
for a while, but in the end I think that the "it's a surprise" talk was
over the top, in poor taste and displayed at best questionable ethics. In particular, it's clear that the presenters
were reading others' mail, which in most sysadmin circles is a clear
ethical breach, and at many employers (including U-M for one) is cause
for disciplinary action. To
some extent the behavior of the presenters can be excused since their
intentions were good. However, "the ends
justify the means" is not a strong or time-honored defense. Anyway, I thought that the email
reading that clearly went on pushed it over the top from justifiable to
wrong. I'm also disturbed that Merit
permitted -- even sponsored -- this kind of misbehavior.
Note that I say this from the sidelines.
I protect all my email traffic with crypto, none of my
mail was read. On a related
note, I found Randy's microphone monopolization during the presentation
to be particularly unhelpful, especially in light of the fact that he
wasn't even one of the listed presenters. |
| I just have to say i
love the energy that Rob Thomas has, he really is something to look
forward to. |
| I
like programming to be more mixed. Maybe
more BOF's Not have a block of all security, but mexed through out. |
| I like the ATDN |
| I liked the research
oriented talks: reliability-AT&T Global stability index- Dartmouth
and the AOL-ISIS Conversion talk |
| I particularly like the
section on research and measurements |
| I suggest Toastmaster's
International |
| I think Rob Thomas moves
around too much. Maybe he should sit still. Good talker; bad moves. I
don't want to see people dance. |
| I wanted more detail in
the technical portions |
| I was disappointed that
Versign did not answer anything but technical questions.
Not surprised, but disappointed.
The problem is everyone knows how it works and what it did
and what it broke, we wanted to know things like why they complained
they had to turn it off without a comment period, but they did not seem
to have a problem turning it on without a comment period. |
| I would have liked to
have heard more specific imformation on best practices.
I thought all the speakers were very informed and willing
to answer questions. |
| Implementing a secure
Network Infrastructure(Merike Kaet) It
deals subject of security on Network Infastructure
It's tipic was great, but it was boring, because it just
showed basic information on various security protocals, no depth, just
sneak peak that was all |
| In general the level of
the program has been a bit low. It would
have seemed better on an advanced level |
| It is unfortunate that
time doesn't allow for more questions- maybe an online question back
for the speaker? |
| less paranoia, more
content please |
| MED presentation was good More operational presentations may be
interesting |
| MED
talk was common knowledge Router config
checking talk was interesting and useful Good stuff. Router views
update was helpful. TV stuff cool. |
| monday's stuff only: router configuration panel was
very useful. that stuff was definitely not
general knowledge for me, so that was cool.
web of trust was useless; most people know how PGP works. anomalous DNS behavior: data was
interesting, but the presentation could have been more clear simple router security panel was
also very good. good mix of people on the
panel, and good mix of topics/perspectives.
passive health monitoring w/BGP is bogus.
as we know, route existence does not correlate all that
well with path reachability, packet loss, etc. (metrics that matter)
for many paths. other
than that, the research forum was good. |
| Needs more technically
advanced material Less security security
security |
| Please ask people to put
important text at the top of the slide, not the bottom, can't see it
there |
| Presentation times are
way to short for the presenters to present any real good content,
rather than a quick pass through. |
| Really enjoyed AOL's
talk on their IS-IS migration. It's
always education and highly entertaining to hear Rob Thomas talk about
anything related to security. |
| Rob Thomas' presentation
was great! |
| Rob Thomas was very
entertaining and knowledgeable scheduling him right after lunch was
perfect. |
| Rob Thomas's
presentation was excellent. Great presentation |
| Rob Thomas's talk was a
big eye opener for me. |
| several
speakers had too small voice like a bird. I cant heard them. |
| Some
audio problems (the last speaker on testing routers was *very* loud). |
| Some of the operational
discussions seem a bit antiquaited and somewhat basic considering the
audience. |
| Some of the speakers
need to work on their public speaking ability. The information is
great, but delivered so poorly, it's meaning is lost. |
| Some of the speakers
were reshed because they had too much material for the time alloted.
Guidance to speakers? |
| Surprise, probably on of
the best presentors to date |
| Team cymru rocks |
| the boring talks should
be moved to early in the AM. Reduce number of talks a bit, have more
time for discussion. |
| The depth and breadth of
experience displayed by the speakers was inspirational.
The candor with which the speakers presented potentially
sensitive data was refreshing. I hope this
is something that will continue to further Nanogs.
And lastly, the schedule was quite well organized and
deployed. |
| The
nsp-sec bof was a little less useful this time, but the pgp key signing
was better, gotta get more people doing that. |
| The research forum was
excellent. Allof the topics were
interesting and highly relevant. The BDIC
talk was especially pertinent. |
| The security tutorial
was not well structured and was not really about securing network
infrastructure. Some of the presentations would have been improved by more examples of real-world networks. |
| There seemed to be quite
a bit of whining about the Versign Site Finder issue.
People need to let it go and grow up a bit ... |
| This is my first NANOG
but I will be back again next year!!! We
found this to be a very good set of presentaions. |
| This was my first NANOG
and I was surprised by the focus on two areas: security and
configuration MGT, some of the material was vague and it seamed to
focus more on research than on operations. Finally all the
presentations should have been downloaded, on the web,before they spoke |
| Tutorials should be held
at night on week-days, no Sunday . |
| verisign
talk descended into acrimony without really resolving anything... |
| Very relevant, timely
discussion of networking concerns and issues. My
one suggestion would be to allow more time for questions/discussion,
especially on topics that are expected to be contraversal, or will
generate a lot of audience interest. |
| Vijay's OSPF-ISIS
migration is a great network migration template that everyone here can
apply to their own situation. Rob's router
security talk was funny, but serious and needed to be said. Useful
tools exposed during this meeting. |
| Was my first NANOG,
speaks were all excellent and are unmatched at other conferences in
this area. |
| We don't need
presentations on security I can go to a security conference fot that |
| while i marked down
"about the same" as a comparison it isn't a bad mark for conference
organizers - just a statement that you're doing a good job each time. |
| While
most of the program was quite informative, I found the "It's a surprise
session" unethical in its presentation. While I am a big proponent of
security awareness there is also a reality that a number of us are in a
situation where we can not implement perfect security. To expose those
people's credentials on an overhead and potentially force
enterprise-wide very cost impactuous changes is in my opinion unethical
and if I were in a position where this would affect me I would consider
having my employer seek legal liability actions against the
organization under whose onus this was executed. |
| Would like even more
operational talks |
How did you like the tutorials?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (49)1 (64) 2 (29) 3 (10) 4 (1) 5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (32) 1 (54) 2 (38) 3 (15) 4 (3) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (41) 1 (57) 2 (31) 3 (7) 4 (2) 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.
| a
third option would have been nice better
planning for laptop users (power) would have been nice |
| all in reference to the
one tutorial I attended- IP anycast |
| although I did not
attend them all, I bounced back and forth and found the level to be way
too introductory. I know several were
introduced as such, but was surprised at how basic the level was. |
| Are the presentations
from Merike Kaeo's tutorial available? |
| bof |
| Didn't attend any
tutorials - nothing above a beginner level. Not
sure if advanced topics are seen as in scope for Sunday. |
| Didn't make it to
Chicago early enough to attend the tutorials. |
| Good discussions on
AnyCast |
| I attended "implememting
a secure network infrastructure-Merike Kaeo- the sessions were
excellent and were at the right lebel of detail. |
| I attended the anycast
IP tutorial, it was OK, but with a little more effort from the speaker,
it would have been great. Also, the room was too low, slides were hard
to see in the back. Speaker should have had a mike around his neck, now
every time he turned around, he stopped speaking into the mike making
it hard to hear. |
| I attended the three
security sessions. These session could probably have been compressed
into two. |
| I didn't attend the
tutorials. |
| I enjoyed 2/3 tutorials
but the Network Infrastructure tutorial was too general. |
| I liked the fact you ran
the tutorials on a sunday. It would be
nice to have the totorials in rooms woth tables though. |
| I was particularly
impressed with the MPLS and IP Anycast tutorials. |
| I would prefer them
during the week instead of Sunday. |
| I would prefer them
during the week instead of Sunday. |
| I'm still waiting for
Merike's presentations. She indicated that
she would get them onto the NANOG site, but ...
The 2 1/2 hour break between the 2nd and 3rd tutorial
sessions was EXTREMELY LOOOOONNNGGG. I
decided I would skip the last session and get some sleep instead. |
| Ina Minei was great Get
her to do more. The sedcurity one was long winded and tried to cram too
much in. Too many security buzzwords, not enough how-to stuff. |
| maybe upaboard |
| Need advanced tutorials.
Most attendees are familiar with beginner/inter. materials already. |
| Network Security: The
talks had a very broad coverage but went sometimes too much into
details forgetting to explain the general aspects. |
| Phil Smith is alwasy
great, but i would love to see a higher level of bgp training. |
| Phil Smithis tutorials
are always good. MAS was technical enough,but the topic was less useful
for me . I heard the 3-part security talk wasn't too great. Deployying v anycast ws good |
| phil smith's BGP
troubleshooting tutorial was very clear; could have been 3 hours
instead of 1.5, so he could have gone into some more subtle details |
| Security presenttions on
Sunday were very poor. Speaker appeared to
have little appicalble experience. |
| security tutorial was
too broad of a topic. Need to be more
focused on topic in order to get to the proper level of detail. Merike did a very good job |
| Technical details were
good, but examples of application could be more comprehensive. To much "tech" and less "how to apply this to
accomplish this in a network. I want a security tutorial |
| the general session: the
level has seemed low. It has been on and
introductory level. |
| The level of detail was
great, it wuld have been nice if they were more technical |
| the security tutorial
was too basic and too long. how
many more basic mpls tutorials do we need. would like something with
more substance. |
| The sunday turtorials
should include some advanced topics.. |
| The turtorials are
completely uninteresting for non-novices. |
| The tutorials were
billed as "introductory", and I think the level of detail was
appropriate for an introductory tutorial. It
would be nice if there could be intermediate or advanced tutorials on
some of these topics in the future. |
| there should be an entry
for not applicable |
| There was no microphone
used at the MPLS tutorial (as far as I could tell) and it was difficult
to hear from the back half of the room. |
| Thought security talk
could use more detail |
| Too bad they weren't
recorded so we could pick up the ones we missed. I
attended the three part series, and missed the other three. |
| Tutorials should be
given more time. It was clear that for the MPLS applications overview
the speaker ran out of time and was unable to go into depth. The multi part model used by
Securing your Network Infrastructure may be the answer |
| Tutorials should be held
at night on week-days, no Sunday . |
| Would like more operational stuff
and stuff for people starting up ISPs. A Best Practices tutorial would
be great |
How did you like the BOF?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (44) 1 (44) 2 (40) 3 (3) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (31) 1 (52) 2 (20) 3 (6) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (38) 1 (50) 2 (18) 3 (3) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory
Please give us your comments on the BOF.
| Audio
should be downloadable after from web page. |
| Couldn't attend - the
meeting is short, the evenings are a major part of "networking" |
| did not attend |
| didn't attend |
| Didn't attend BOF's |
| Excellent face-to-face
exchange |
| Excellent. Let's do it
again. Probably better than the peering BOF's.
Should be encouraged to to do the PGP Key signing again as
well. Encourage Presenters to attend the Keysigning - They are the
"spokespersons" who have the most industry visibility. |
| good stuff- alot more
hig level( ~ 10,000 foot) view |
| I think maybe if a BOF
is going to be continous,there should be an intro, mid/overview to
sessions so the various target groups can be addresssed. |
| Is it time to get rid of
the PGP BOF yet? |
| Just wanted more BOF'S |
| Just what I wanted to
see. I'm not currently focused on
security, but everyone needs to be aware of it. Our
security guys should have been there. |
| Less presention, more
audience interaction |
| More topics- peering,
mulitcast, routing, BGP, etc. |
| Need more BoFs. What happened to the peering BoF?
Please don't drop the security BoF, even though we have
had it a few NANOGs in a row. |
| No Peering BOF? |
| sorry didnt go, seemed
to be redundant with tutorial |
| The BOF had a lively and
useful discussion of current security issues and mitigation techniques. This level of interaction was very useful |
| the keysinging was good,
do more to promote? need key people to participate |
| The whole panel provided
excellent inputs and thought provocing insights. |
| There should be more specific
measures to be discussed to solve the security issues |
| There used to be 2 simultaneous
BOF's. WHy not this time? Not all of us so security/peering/etc. |
| useless |
| would have been nice to
have a peering bof.. |
|
| this your first time attending NANOG? |
| (114) Yes (86) No |
|
|
What do you think about the balance of
research-oriented talks versus operations-oriented talks on the NANOG
agenda?
(30) There's too much research, I want more operations.
(161) I think the current mix of talks is okay
(8) There's too much operations, I want more research
|
|
| What worked well and what should be improved for the next
NANOG? |
| 1st day wireless was almost
useless for a good part of the day. |
| a few parallel
tracks could be created for a 1/2 day. Security,
core routing, spam, ipv6, wifi, etc. could be parallel topics. |
| A less expensive
city and hotel would be much better. |
| A lot of operation issues,
that of course are relevant and core for NANOG But
it would be important to know where we all are in applying all this
good stuff. So online "talk" would
be interesting. ie how many have implemented all of the good "doctrines
or are planning to do so |
| Again, the 2-1/2
hour break for dinner the night of the tutorials was much too long. 1-1/2 hours would have been plenty. The ATDN presentation on their
migration from multi-area OSPF to single level IS-IS was informative |
| all was good |
| As i said before
it should have been on a higher level. This
is my first ime so maybe my appreciation is not correct and the other
meetings have been more advanced. |
| Attendance up;
mood of attendees more positive. Sessions
I could attend were good - appreciated clear markers in the talks on
"this is not new, it's review" and "this is new stuff".
(Was limited in what I could attend, but that's a
good thing - too much hallway conversation ...) |
| Attendee list
could list ASN'S they represent. |
| Basically good |
| Beer and geer
network conntectivity was a disaster. Didn't
have a link until the last minute and, when we did, it was insufficient
bandwidth. Made demos nearly impossible,
which is why people go to B&G. |
| Conference overall
is great. Good mix of speakers. Best is
the chance to meet other operators. |
| Don't put a
critical presentation like Quest's at the end-some people have planes
to catch... |
| everything was
great... |
| Everything worked
well except, of course, |
| Generally the
format is good. Perhaps a voluntary photo page for participant
reconition would be useful |
| Good amount of
attention paid to security |
| Good venue,
smoking permitted on the floor below. Good having it in a big wonderful
city, where the choices of restaurants are plentiful. |
| Handing out
Wireless NICs worked well after the problelms of infected machines were
addressed. Hanling of the infected
machines and their owners could have been handled more professionally. I was not one of the offenders! Verisign
attacks should have been mitigated. This
questioning got a little out of control. |
| Hello! I did not get to fill out the feedback form. I wanted to say that the event was great. I look forward to the next one!
The only critisism I have is the wireless
connections you provided. From what I
understand, because of the way it was set up, people could hack the
system and cause users to be knocked off and then be given an
unregistered IP address from a phantom DHCP server.
I lost a lot of time rebooting and trying to resolve
the problem. I would hope that you will
have this resolved for the next NANOG meeting.
Part of the reason I can manage to go to these types
of events is because I can try to get some of my normal work done while
at the conference, but if this is not resolved by NANOG 30, I may
reconsider attending. |
| Hotel space was
good - numerous chairs outside the main space to work. Tutorial rooms
seemed a bit cramped -- taller rooms for elevated projection would be
nice. |
| I liked the fact
that many of the researchers used real data and did not claim to know
things about the operation of networks they never operated. Many times in the past people have gotten up
and explained how we were doing things wrong, even though they have
never actually logged into a router or run a network.
Please never have those people back. |
| I liked the
insecurity panel! Maybe combine the tools
research into one session to save time. |
| I really like the
downtown Chicago location and the security topics. |
| I think it all
worked well ... room layout (and power) was great, topics were
informative and relevant, and the food was good too :-).
I found all the tutorial topics interesting. This may be hard to do, but it might be nice
if the presentators could each give more than one presentation on
Sunday, so attendees would have more opportunities to attend the
tutorials that are of interest to them. |
| I thought that the
breakfast food was particularly excellent. If
I could add one thing it would have been whole-wheat bagels but really,
it was great. See above for
comments on ethical lapses on the part of the organizers and presenters. Several of the
beer-and-gear showings were pretty pathetic. It's
really the vendor's responsibiity and not the program organizers', but
still, if folks are going to have a booth they ought to at least bother
to display a little self-respect and power up their gear! |
| I thought the best
parts were the tie-in's to recent issues on the list, i.e. anycast,
sitefinder. |
| I would only
recommend that results presented pertaining to data collection and
analysis be verified before presentation. Having
someone say "I don't know if this data is an anomoly due to a bug in my
software" makes the entire presentation unbelievable. |
| It was all good.
Apart from the wireless on Monday morning! |
| it
would be nice if the program committee would try to think of a few
things to help new NANOGers. i noticed a
number of new folks this year and they were often wandering helplessly. i saw the newbie web page that tried to orient
folks, but there are just so many people who come here meeting after
meeting and know each other whereas the new folks find it very
difficult to break in and be part of the existing cliques. |
| Keep it the same |
| Liked
the Filsfils IP Convergence and the Shaw GBIC talks.
The AT&T Rougan research presentation topic was
extremely interesting but too short and not hugely useful. |
| Location was
excellent |
| Location was good |
| Longer
presentation times for those that would like it. |
| make it adjourn
before 2pm |
| meeting room was
packed too tightly wireless was flaky and
slow location was great
beer and gear was great |
| Moderators were
excellent in keeping us on time |
| more
comfortable wireless LAN use SSID:ThisNetworkSucks
is good :-) |
| More real world
expamples that go into greater detail. Maybe
embarrassing to some,but a great opportunity to learn
Overall, the meeting is run fairly well and I did
enjoy the open discussions |
| More routing, less
security (or, better security) |
| More technically
rich discussions/topics/etc. |
| More Vijay Gill,
Avi Freedman,Robert Seastrom and John Payne should also present. |
| Need a more stable
wireless LAN. Most folks are trying to
keep business running, but continual failures detract and make you more
frustrated. |
| please find
sponsors for a catered lunch and shorten the lunch period
--- have a test network
infrastructure that you have to prove your laptop is clean on before
you are let on the production network |
| Please see speaker
note above. |
| Randy Bush was
funny he should be funnier next NANOG |
| Realvideo
streaming was lacking for off-site attendees. |
| Research is great
especially when it speaks direct to ops folks and engages them like the
RoLex talk. Filsfils was OK but a bit too aloof and talking at us. We
do need to be more aware of research but we would like to understand
how we can make use of the research right away. |
| room layout was
awkward Worked-blocking/choregraphy of
similar tipics was great The hotel was
great -having floors 4,5,6,7, to ourselves was great |
| room layout was
great - the number of tables and power points was great.
more filtering at the wireless access points for
compromised or otherwise misbehaving hosts would be much appreciated to
make the wireless more useful for those of use that would like to use
it. :-) |
| see above |
| Seems informal
talks are very beneficial. I wish
there were moderated informal sessions for ISP"s to discuss topics. Loved the conference being located in the
midwest instead of on the coasts. |
| Some details on
the slides, so was the info on the bottom of the slides |
| suggestions |
| support
802.11g/b/a wireless |
| Susan Harris
should be retired, as she is too old and uppity to fulfill her
obligations as a conference host. |
| Talks were good. Wireless was problematic at first. Kudos to those that tracked down the problem
hosts. Power was a problem as well - no
power on the right side at first. And no
power in the side rooms (for tutorials, the bof, beer & gear). |
| The "Surprise" was
great. Do that more with more focus on best practices |
| The alternate
presentation method for Rob's router security talk was a big plus. The Big Surprise was the best part of this
meeting. The results were ridiculous for
this crowd. Hopefully a big eye-opener. |
| the
audio engineer at the mixing board should be improved.
I realize that it was hotel staff but maybe there
should be a NANOG staffer there also. |
| The discussions on
products being developed wre somewhat distant from the ops/engineering
side of the house. How can we associate
what they're saying to what we do? |
| The presentations
were quite good and on-topic this time. The
wireless network functioned very poorly and took far too long before it
became remotely usable. It's always been
much better at previous meetings. If it
doesn't get fixed until Tuesday, that's unacceptable--the meeting is
more than half over by then. |
| The program worked
very well and was informative. I liked the offerings of optional social
events to experience the city somewhat more. This is a nice feature
value-added and offers great networking with others. As I already noted
I found the actions of the nanog29 network operaters very questionable
and would suggest they not be repeated. |
| the router content
really helps me in my day to day job and makes it easy to pay
attention. Much better. |
| The rows of tables
are too long making it difficult for people in the middle of the row to
contribute to discussions. More aisles. |
| The wireless LAN
and wireless MAN were sub-par. Please try
to offer 802.11a, 802.11g, WEP, dynamic WEP, and/or WPA / WPA2
(802.11i) at the next conference (at least one of the above would be
nice). |
| The wireless links
were great. It made it alot nicer to
attend the conf. Being able to look at info while at the sessions was
GREAT!!!! |
| The wireless needs
to work. Kick people out with infected
machines/broken wireless configs |
| There were several
presentations (the one on RANCID, Matt Roughan, Christian Estan, Nick
Feamster, and one or two more) that were identical to presentations
given by the same authors less than 1 month ago.
<P> I think
presentations at NANOG should be unique and not a copy of what was
presented elsewhere. One way to accomplish
this is not to accept talks that were presented recently elsewhere, or
require that a there is significant new work added. |
| things seem quite good. |
| Thought it was
good. |
| Topic areas were
well covered. If there is a greater
representation of research over operational I think a mix of topics to
provide breaks i the information given so as to limit information
overload |
| Topics seem to get
better every nanog. |
| Tutorials content
was good, BoF bad |
| Venue was good
(nice central bar for sociability and meeting up!) but hotel room block
filled up quite rapidly. This was not necessarily a bad thing in
Downtown Chicago, as hotel rooms were readily available elsewhere, and
at much better rates (and often better quality!). |
| wifi? What didn't
work well for $200, alex. Moving
see above. |
| Wireless
network did not work very well. While the reasons were obvious,
reliable network connectivity is a must. IPSEC tunnels were difficult
to maintain at times. |
|
| |
| Do you have suggestions for future NANOG presentations?
(Topics
and/or speakers) |
| A BOF on wireless security would
be good. It should be an interactive
session that allows"auditing" of participants ordinary practices. |
| A tutorial on
Forensics |
| approaches
to managing distinct classes of service from edge (i.e., the
customer-facing product) through the core
impact of voice over ip on public networks - class
of service, quality, SIP/session management, directory infrastructure -
L3 and others do this multi-provider
2547bis VPNs - any thoughts on challenges here, and are any providers
working through them |
| blaster, sobig....
to filter or not to filter |
| Changing nature of
peering policies.are the tools being used to allow differential peering
and partial transition on same link. |
| Consensus on
internet(?) parameters and metrics |
| Focu NSP,sec,BOF
on edge filtering |
| General status on
IEEE 802 wg status |
| Get Hott Karl from
USB services, Atlanta- to talk on his downtime solutions for BGP drops |
| Get the tools
makers to get together and do a forum about how they are integrating
their tools to avoid overlap and make it easier for us to deploy and to
reuse parts of tools, i.e. config parser. |
| Hard to see how
anything could compare to KC Clabby's " the answer lies in measurement
form Miami |
| Have to give a
technical talk |
| How to carry carrier-grade voice over IP in a multi service
network. case studies based on actual or planned solutions |
| How to deal with
consumer infected machines to make ISP networks more useable or immune. Not just oversize everything. |
| I am very
interested in workable, scaleable IPSec or similar security
implementations. e.g. how to do PKI without killing yourself or
something better... |
| I know the
organizers really do their best to have the presentoations from the
various talks online,ASAP. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I think this would allow attendees a chance to
review the data and attend the NANOG with some awareness based on the
research presented. |
| I'm personally
curious about hearing more about network management in an operational
context. I'm not sure how many ISPs would be comfortable talking about
this, though. |
| Interconnection
with voice, cos, etc. |
| IP Traffic
Engineering, just general methodology, principles and techniques,
beyond MPLS-specific techniques |
| Jeff
Doyle for continuation of IPv6 from NANOG28 would be very interesting. |
| Judging by the
"surprise" talk on Tuesday, perhaps a tutorial on secure wireless
computing might be in order.. with examples for setting up ssh tunnels
around web traffic, securing a desktop OS, etc. |
| Let
Rob Thomas present more! Many breaks- seem
to be too many. |
| Maybe a tutorial
"tools survey" |
| Maybe sessions of
the same topic in the same slot. |
| More Best
Practices talks |
| More on spam
fighting. Perhaps a pannel of
anti-spammers &/or companies doing anti-spam work |
| More operational
talks about current practices, experiences. |
| More ops stuff |
| More Rob Thomas,
other than that is was great! |
| More tutorials on
MPLS, BGP, and Security |
| MPLS implementations |
| MPLS VPN :
advantage and disadvantage. How to cut off worm virus permanently |
| No immediate
thoughts. Where would I send suggestions
as they occur to me going forwards? |
| Nope, nicely don
overall. |
| Perhaps a mix of
more how to's rather than what we did.. |
| Please
consider presentations related to: - Metro
Ethernet deployment, focus is currently in Europe/Asia but would be
nice to have some feedback - NANOG
wireless setup. It would be nice if some of the previous hosters shared
their experience setting up and running the wireless. It appears monday
morning always has issues of some sort related to wireless and it would
be nice to have people discussing this and sharing the feedback. |
| Potential
for small group panels with more experienced operators to provide
tutorials to group of 20 or less people on mid-high level technical
topics. |
| provide a link
page of network tools on NANOG website |
| Randy Bush should
present again. More implementation experience presentations |
| Real world traffic
engineering guidline additional
reesentations on security-would like to see a consultant from a
"Hacker" company to speak. Follow-up on
tools that were discussed in this session |
| Regulatory issues
that affect ISP's such as CALEA and the Freedom Act. |
| Research is key,
but we need something that we can bring home. |
| see above |
| smart, secure,
happy bgp routing with fast convergence and tools to monitor and
measure all of the above. ;> more
active conference security stuff... more honeypot stuff especially...
that was great =] |
| something on how
to run things when you don't have a bottomless pit for a budget (ebay
eq purchases, service contract issues, how to deploy nms on less than
the latest hardware etc). not sure how interesting this would be to
others, may want to ping the list. |
| Sometimes I wonder
if NANOG is just a soapbox for Randy Bush. |
| Testing
methodologies would be useful(performance, convergence, scalability) |
| The network
sniffing should be done everytime, since it is very pertinent to the
target audience. Make people aware and
teach them to be accountable. =] |
| The rise of the
MSO's The balance of transit vs. peering
traffic-impact on the internet Equipment
los battle- what should customers consider"standard" |
| Transparent proxy
implementation beyond policy based routing and WCCP |
| Two things I'd
really like to see: -
microsoft rep(s) defending (or admitting to) their horrible security
record and telling us what steps they'll take to clean up the mess and
when. - a router architecture
panel discussion with a moderator and a rep from cisco, juniper,
procket, foundy, avici, etc. needs a
strong moderator and should involve questions submitted on the mailing
list and allow questions from the audience |
| update on BGP
research, IETF work, Ina Minei security case study/case studies-Merike
Kaeo |
| wide area storage
networks |
| worm containment,
filtering, best practices, regulating systems |
|
|
| 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. |
| Riverstone Networks ????? |
| Seattle! SIX
and/or Microsoft |
| Steve Lindford,
spamhaus Brightmail, etc. |
|
Back to the NANOG29 main page.
|
