|
« NANOG30 Home
NANOG30 Survey Results
Miami, Florida
Attendee Survey Results
Please take a moment to fill out our evaluation form.
Your comments and suggestions will help us plan future meetings.
Thank you!
Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one)
Very useful (54)
Useful (116) No
opinion (12) Not
very useful (5)
Useless (0)
If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG
compare?
Better (25) About
the same (63) Worse (22) N/A (67)
How did you like the program (the
Monday-Tuesday General Session)?
The choice of topics was:
Well Chosen (40) 1 (94) 2 (40) 3 (13) 4 (2) 5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (38) 1 (88) 2 (50) 3 (9) 4 (0) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (39) 1 (100) 2 (43) 3 (5) 4(2) 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.
| Should have compressed the
historical retrospective *significantly* to make way for more
operational content. |
| 1st day I
think more technical thing will be good |
| applicability
of presentations varied, but could be due to audience diversity. I
appreciated MS. Sidebottom's non-technical insight into recent
legislation; |
| Best one that I have ever attended. |
| Better tha
non-stop DDos. Significant overlap i the historical perspective talks
but that may have bee inevitable. |
| Better tha
usual speakers for this one. |
| BGP/MPLS
ssecond presentatio o Sunday
Very Good |
| Could have
picked a better hotel Locatio wasn't
great-many people had problems with rooms, cleanliness, availablity etc. |
| Enough with
the MPLS talks, do they need to dominate YEAR AFTER YEAR? |
| Eric's
"trap/clean" talk. |
| For a
newcomer at NANOG, but having bee with a ISP for over 8 yrs, the
retrospective was informative and amusing. But were they useful ? |
| generally,
o the first day I was surprised by the prevalence of comments that were
heghly critica o the personal level about characters not eve present to
counter argument. The superiority complex
(" we ca out tech themfools") was a tad boring and childish. This view
into the pettiness of great minds was at best disappointing |
| good i
general maybe too much history and retro we spent valuable time hearing
these topics |
| good mix of
topics Scott B talks are always excellent:informative and funny Very
interesting presentations o BGP:Liste & Whisper & Making sense
of BGP |
| Harvard
was best Monday "Ole Skool" ws entertaining |
| history was
interesting, but got tedious speakers i general were very good at
presenting |
| Homeland
Security talk was content-free. Also
Tuesday a.m. Bradner talk. |
| Hot
potatoes presentatio excellent Anniversy topic average |
| I
did like the tuesday, the monday was to much history. I prefer the
presentatio about the real practical stuff. The research stuff is
sometimes hard to follow, for me, but certainly interesting. |
| I don't
mind paying more for NANOG if it means having more time for presentors
to present! |
| I
especially liked the retro sessions. Best talks: Scott Bradner, Phil
Karn. Best research Topic: Synchronising Software Clocks o the Internet |
| I find
research topics somewhat less tha useful, sometimes it appears the only
point of the research is to continue the pursuit of their degree. |
| I liked the
"retro" focus for NANOG 30!! Scott Bradner
was great! |
| I lilke the
university network presentations the retrospective was too long o Monday |
| I little
too much focus o "back i the old days." |
| I loved the
retrospective aspect of this NANOG... being a "old-timer" myself. ;-) |
| I really
enjoyed the Internet History presentations |
| I really
enjoyed the retrospective, although Sue Hares detailed slides didn't
really guide me all that well. I was
expecting more presentations o problems providers were facing tha
academic presentations, but both are useful. |
| I really
enjoyed the short history of the internet |
| I recognize
this was a anniversary date, however, I found day one (Monday) a bit
slow. Almost needless info that probably
should have bee offered as a extra day prior to Sunday tutors. |
| I think
history was over-emphesised. History is
both entertaining and useful, but we took about 1/4 of the program for
it. |
| I think
there was too many 'History of' sessions. |
| I thought
the historical / look at the past 10 years was interesting, but it
would have bee better mixed into various other presentations. It made
it hard to focus o talk after talk about essentially similar topics |
| I
understand that this is the 10th anniversary, but I think the
retrospective speakers were a bit overkill. |
| I would
have prefered that the retrospective be a Tuesday |
| It is great
to have such opinionated people and hear where they think the industry
is going some of the students need work before they present their
research |
| It
may sound absurd, but I feel that it would tremendously improve the
quality of the NANOG meeting if the speakers were give
training o how to speak, how to present. You
would think that at this point i a persons career that
they would have already done this, but obvisouly not.
Spefic examples were Tina o the Sunday tutorial -- she
was dancing all around the podium, out of range of the microphone so it was impossible to hear the
majority of her presentation... and she
tried to go through it far too quickly I have participated i several presentations to
other professional organizations that are now providing speaker tips
and reviewing the slides 2 - 3 months i
advance... forcing the speaker to prepare and reivew
early The other issue seemed to be i
incongruence betwee the titles and the
content. Great title -- stopping worms o a college campus -- turned out to be a couple of
slides about creating cooperatio i a
political environment. Great speaker, wrong audience. |
| It was
enjoyable to see time dedicated to history and how we got here |
| It will be
good to have more technical talks. But
breadth of topics is very good. |
| Life o 4U
network- Eric Cauthier-good anallysis of DDos vs SCO-good Paul Francis
views vs Phil Karn's views- very
interesting to see tensions re: NAT |
| Lots of
slides had illegible diagrams and text i tiny point sizes.
While I know it's o their fault, some of the non-native
English speakers are prone to gabble and waffle during their
presentations, making it very hard to understand them clearly. Maybe
they need some guidelines about speaking? |
| Many
speakers had fonts there were too small. Dual-corner projectio screens
drew attentio away from the speakers i the center, who likewise were
unable to effictvely gesture or be otherwise engaging.
Consider o central larger projectio scree i the future. |
| Many times
the interesting stuff was killed to stay o schedule.
The schedule is less important |
| Monday was
too long 15 hours is too mich split it up into more days |
| Monday was
too much history of the internet |
| MPLS
discussio were very good but assumed certai scenerios should have had
more generic focus with respect to hpolyw
(?) |
| Not enough
time for speakers to talk...some talks felt hurried. |
| NSP-SEC BOF |
| Overall
very good. But we had many "where have we
been" discussions where only one or two would have bee adequate. The show was still very good, but just it
lacking i technical content. |
| Paul
Francis talk (feb9) was BORING. he is
repeating the same "I love NAT" song like broke record. |
| Please
include more technical presentations and "Best Practice" presentations |
| Please,
ghod, no more MPLS. BGP stuff was
interesting and good. Liked the Exchange
Point stuff. |
| program was
pretty solid |
| Programs
were good, but new topics need to be solicited. It
was striking to me that NANOG has had some of the same topics for soo
long. Also more opposing presentations may
stir more debate among issues.... |
| Really
enjoyed the history lesson. Not think we
need all the mpls. I have zero interest i mpls. |
| S Bradner's
2nd presentatio was somewhat interesting, but it ws really just a
"here's what I do now" Not sure how relevant that was More retro tallks
would have bee good Peering debate was a good idea |
| Scott B and
Dino F were excellent |
| Scott B. "A
short history of the internet" was wonderful |
| Scott
Bradner's A Short History of the Internet was excellent. |
| Should
build a cd image of Mondays presentations so I ca hand it to my staff
as homework. Best set of "this is why it is" presentatio I've seen. |
| snacks
disappeared too quick |
| Some of the
presentations seemd a bit much ( particularyly towards the end of the
day) It time is a constraint it might have bee best to cut dow topics
and/or presentations ranterh tha rush throught them. |
| Some of the
talks were excellent , some not so |
| some
speakers were good one was terrified and it showed too much
self-centered talk: why tech problems were involved till 6:20 o Monday-
maybe this is for the 10th anniversary |
| speakers
should try to improve quality /resolutions of their slides. Sometimes
they were not online and hard to see from the auditorium |
| the relevance of topics o tuesday was well thought
out |
| The debate
during the peering bof was excellent. I
would suggest redoing it, however doing it panel vs. panel i the
general session. |
| The DHS
lawyer's talk could have bee organized better for ISPs by presenting: - Data collectio (types) that may become
required - Which data that providers may collect may be subpeona-able
or may have archival requirements And the
reference individial laws, rather tha working it from the other
direction. |
| The first
day's programs concentrated mostly o the evolutions of the internet,
its history etc. which was not very useful. |
| the
historical content was interesting but devoid of technical detail. the technical talks were full of technical
content but poorly delivered. |
| The
mainstay of Monday, the 10 years of NANOG, history of the Internet,
etc, until the research talks was a abuse of time.
Sorry, I know it's great and all, but so much
self-congratulatio and so many "funny" annecdotes is not interesting,
really. Scott Bradners talk about his new
job o Tuesday morning was similarly a abuse of time.
Most of the non-10 year talks have bee good.
More time for the talks research talks o Monday afternoo
would have bee good. |
| The
microphones suck The hotel quality and locatio was poor |
| The nostalgic NANOG
history review was intersting, but not too informative.
More informatio from the Department of Homeland Defense
would be VERY interesting. |
| The
presentations from the UCB and UC were very good |
| the retro
talk was good |
| There never
seems to be enough time -- I don't know whether less topics, or more
NANOG is required...! |
| This is
without a doubt the worst hotel that NANOG has ever bee hosted at. |
| thought
some of the research topics were a little too deep " i the weeds" |
| too much
focus o retro take Scott's presentatio o Tuesday How does a talk o
Scott's job help me as a network researcher(operator) engineer/vendor?
Waste of Scott's time and ours |
| too much
history more real life engineerint deployments/solutions enjoyed Scott
Bradner |
| Too much
history o Monday |
| Too much
nostalgia. 45 minutes of history would have bee interesting, but the
prolonged historical tour was done at the expense of other topics. |
| too much
retro. I know its bee 10 years and thats
great but really it should have bee 1 or two talks not all day long. |
| Too much
time spent o history, while the research forum talks would have
deserved much more time |
| too much
time spent o the retrospectives |
| Unfortunately
I found a number of the retro-talks to be lacking i insight and detail
- great speakers with nothing interesting to hear from them. It was nice to hear some of their abbreviated
stories, but they seemed to be missing details, so only a "old-hand"
would gai some value from these talks. So day 1 AM was kinda
dissappointing. Most of the rest of the general sessio talks were quite
good and had alot of interesting detail and things to lear and
implement. |
| Very BGP
heavy Wide variey of technical sessions would have bee more useful More
focus o emerging technologies ( i e Wireless) |
| While
history was interesting at first it got to be too much.
It shold have bee limited to half a day max |
How did you like the tutorials?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (41) 1 (57) 2 (25) 3 (14) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (35) 1 (62) 2 (29) 3 (6) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (42) 1 (60) 2 (20) 3 (8) 4 (3) 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 bit more "depth" about peering
and technical issues would have bee nice... |
| a little
bit too much MPLS I'd like to see IPv6 |
| Always like
a good tutorial by Joe from Juniper. He
always does a excellent job. |
| Balus
and Loomis were excellent, but went a little fast for me.
Soricelli had some interesting material, but turned me off
by asking poorly-worded questions and insulting the participants whe
they didn't answer right away. |
| Blackhole
tutorial excellent BGP/MpLS Layer 3...very
good real demo's vs presentations would be
nice |
| Chris
Morrow's presentatio o customer triggered blackhole filtering was very
good. More detail o implementatio could
have bee provided however. |
| did not
attend |
| didn't
attend |
| didn't
attend |
| Didn't
attend them. None were particularly relevant to my operations. |
| enough MPLS
already |
| fairly good
overall |
| fast reroute |
| FRR talk
should include stuff like time flow diagrams to provide a framework VO
L2 talk was excellent, but need more details |
| I a ? from Juniper Sunday tutorial o Laxer 3 MPLS
was terrific really clear and complete
made it comprehensible ( complex topic) |
| I did not
attend tutorials |
| I have zero
interest i mpls. Like the idea of advanced tutorials. |
| I only
attended the MPLS FRR session, would definatly like to see the advanced
sessions continue to be offered. |
| Ina Minie's
tutorial is very clear and informative |
| ina's mpls
talks are always excellent. |
| Ina's talk
was good, but after starting out saying it was going to be a vendor
independent talk, she was promoting Juniper's products which was i bad
taste. |
| Ina's was
great Tim Battles was quite spaced he just read his slides not useful |
| Jow
Soricelli's comments/presentatio was exceptional The Blackhole sessio
was very good, also-all 3 presentors |
| L2VPN L3VPN |
| More
introductory tutorials: I do not assume that everyone at NANOG is a
expert. Network Engineers are a dime a
doze (obvious from Dot-NET boom), will always have newbie engineers
(like me). |
| MPLS. Why do you spend so much time o MPLS. Out of the 500 people here, perhaps 30 of them
use MPLS. Do you really think most people
here care about MPLS? The BGP tutorial
would have bee good, but I missed it. :( I
did want to go, though. Suggestion: If you
do MPLS again, make it 9 AM o Sunday, and do the useful topics i the
late afternoon. |
| n/a |
| Peering
debate ok but agai meeting was killed, follow up survey- post contact
app. please |
| Perhaps
more rudimentary tutorials should be presented ie BGP primer, MPLS for
beginners. |
| real-tilme
blackhole discussio was very good great presenters ISP security POF was also very good NSP-SEC mailing list
taht came out of it is potentially somethilng that will help out a lot
of mitagating attacks |
| the MPLS
based L2 UPNS was a very good overview of the technoloy |
| The
MPLS/Layer 3 VP talk by Ina Minei, Juniper Networks, seemed more like a
Marketing talk for Juniper and Cisco-bashing. This is unethical coming
from a Juniper and ex-Cisco employee at a vendor-independant conference
like Nanog. Alos, Juniper should stop
using company logo slides at Nanog presentations. |
| The NAP
tour was excellent Thank you Terremaru Josh was a great guide |
| The
tutorials weren't particularly interesting MPLS. The
talks were good, except for the self-indulgent 10-year talks. |
| Tina was terrible. |
| To much
MPLS? |
| too much
MPLS |
| Too much
MPLS! |
| Tutorials are a
excellent idea Would like to see more i
the future |
| Way
too much MPLS. Nice to see more advanced
topics, though. |
| we may
split the sessions by topics and hence simultaneous sessions so that
people may choose the thracks that intrest them |
How did you like the BOFs?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (59) 1 (48) 2 (17) 3 (1) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (47) 1 (49) 2 (25) 3 (5) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (55) 1 (48) 2 (20) 3 (2) 4 (1) 5 Unsatisfactory
Please give us your comments on the BOF.
| They
ru too late. |
| Adding a
bit of spacing betwee the BOF sessions could have bee useful. The
security BOF ra long, as did the peering BOF and of course I wanted to
the attend the key signing. |
| Again, the
peering BOF debate was excellent. |
| Bill Norto
should have posted his slides o peering contacts. They were very
usefull and should be o the NANOG web page. |
| ca only
rate one bof as there were too many parallel |
| did not
attend |
| did not
attend |
| Did not
attend |
| Didn't
attend |
| excellent
Peering BOF |
| good to
have a peering BOF again |
| Great
debate -- I really liked Bill Norton's focus and work o getting all of
the peers together. |
| I don't
think the BOF'S are needed, should use
time for presenations |
| I enjoyed
the peering BOF very much |
| I find that
the BOF's are i generally excellent My only complaint is that I find
and always have had the core participants are very familiar almost to
the point of being exclusionary to the larger audience We lose intrest
as a result introductions and biographies are very important |
| I only
followed the security BOF |
| I the
peering BOF the debate was good, but the participants should have bee
more likely |
| I'm not
into peering...Really can't comment. Other
BOF's were ok. |
| ISP SEC BOF
- great |
| ISP
Security BOF- good mix of presentations- good level of info |
| Keep
having peering BOFs. The peering debate
was great. |
| Most of the
BOFs seemed to overrun. |
| need a
bigger room for beer and gear |
| NSP sectio
was very good |
| NSP-SEC and
peering BOFs are always good |
| Only did
peering tutorial |
| Peering BOF
earlier i the evening please |
| Peering BOF
format worked very well, enjoyed the great debate. Have Avi and Vijay
switch sides next NANOG. |
| Peering BOF
very useful Would like to see a tools BOF again |
| Peering BOF
very usefull ( first time attendance) |
| peering BOF
was very useful |
| Peering BOF
worked well |
| Peering
BOF: Interesting debate. I think it was mostly a rehash of things that
we had heard or know already. The overall thing went too long. So if
either one or another should be done (personals vs all the different
talks and the debate). I think the personals and meeting peering people
is one of the mai reasons I come to Nanog. |
| Peering
BOGF was great. Wish we had one at every
NANOG. |
| please hold
peering BOF more often |
| presentations
fine for bofs, although for the security bof, there were more
presentations tha discussion. |
| Security
BOF was excellent |
| security
BOF was excellent |
| Security
BOF was good |
| Security
BOF was great. It's nice to have BOFs
starting at different times, so one ca sample several, eve if there
isn't time for them all. |
| Security ok
Peering also ok |
| Seemed like
there was a lot of misinformatio o the slides for teh peering personals |
| Should do
the peering BOF at all NANOGS, and earlier i the day.
Security BOF was excellent. |
| The BOFs
are always productive |
| The
Equiniz/Peering BOF was too slanted towards Equinix |
| The great
debate hosted by Bill Norto was of high quality( thanks to the
volunteers) and highly entertaining at the same time. Good times |
| The peering
BOF continues to be a excellent resource. The
debate was entertaining |
| The
peering BOF tried something different with a debate, and although I am
sure Bill helped them prepare, unlike the normal exciting energy, this
was putting people to sleep. I rather
enjoy, and expect change, however, if there is one thing nanog really
needs it's a exciting presentation, and Bill has historically bee one
of the folks who makes this conference worth while. |
| The Peering
BOF was very useful for meeting other peering managers, and the "great
debate" was a amusing diversion. |
| The
security BoF was excellent, please keep it going. The
peering BoF was AWESOME, much better tha before. Part
of that was because more and more people are coming, from all over the
world. (Bill should stop putting up just a
US map o the screne.) Part of that was the
debate. The debate was very, very good,
and nice to see some "Real" points behind those topic.
The PGP signing thing would have bee good too, but I
missed it 'cause the Peering BoF went over - since teh Peering BoF was
soooooo good. |
| The timezone difference
betwee Amsterdam and Miami was having too much effect and I didn't
attend any of the BOFs :-( |
| the two most
interesting BOF's were opposite each other ( peering/ troubleshooting) |
| very
interesting format, debate for the peering BOF (the only one I attended) |
|
| Is this your first time attending NANOG? |
| (70) Yes (106) No |
|
|
What location would you prefer for future NANOG
meetings?
(76) East Coast
(15) Midwest
(53) West Coast
|
|
| What worked well and what should be improved for the next
NANOG? |
| A more robust wireless LA would
be great - there needs to be some better of tracking dow *who* is
running ibss base-stations with the nanog ssid as well as those running
base-stations with other ssid's o the same channels as the meeting
wireless la - how about having attendees register their laptop's MAC
address somehow? Otherwise I have no complaints. |
| A nicer hotel. A bar that stays ope beyond 12:00am. A hotel with room service that operates beyond
11:00pm. |
| Alternate
locations Pferhaps presentations could be a deeper more conceptual work |
| always
wireless and audio video problems |
| Audio/Vidio-
fonts too small o screen- couldn't read from middle or rear of the room
Auddio too loud i front Presentors should be encouraged or requred to
use a minimu font size |
| better
hotel better access to restaurants/activites |
| better
wireless connectivity. Choose a hotel with decent food we ca walk to. |
| connectivity
sucks |
| drop
the internet history |
| Eve
more emphasis o security issues, and network management |
| Everything
about the actual conference was done very well; good conference room,
good NANOG network, good speakers, good "extras". But
the actual locatio was not good. Hotel
internet crashed, scary neighborhood and quite expensive.
I travel o a manditory corporate credit card so
being confront with situations where I can't use it is frustrating. I prefer taxi services to get around and none
of the cab companies i Miami used credit cards. This
is probably just my ow personal annoyance. But
i general I found Miami somewhat inhospitable to business travelers. |
| Find
a hotel that doesn't want to recreate artic conditions withi the
ballroom, and has lifts that don't go missing. |
| Find
a place o Miami Beach!!! |
| First
day must be as rich as the second I do understand that celebrating 10
years filled the agenda |
| Fix
the Microphones |
| Focus
o the network-not people get the simple things right-audio, video,
display It is surprising to see the EMCEE fumbling with the projector. It can't be that hard |
| Food:
Good. Hotel: Unmitigated
disaster. |
| Get
the presentations o posted at least the day before so they ca be review
before the talks. I was interested i two BOFs and neither of the slides
were posted. |
| good
to have IXP panel again connectivity from NANOG's is getting worse and
worse-please ca we have 802.11 a/g wireless and more reliable external
connectivity hotel flaky |
| Good
wireless coverage |
| Hotel
locatio is awful. You should be able to
walk to at least some decent eating/shopping/entertainment venues. |
| Hotel
sucked , city ok, Network sucked, got better BOF o metro ( ?) |
| hotel
was pricey More packetr desig stuff Have them present before Beer and
Gear |
| I
attended my webcast and didn't have any problems getting the content! |
| I
could not get a room @ the hotel organiztio was fine would be good to
have a contact board for people leaving notes for each other, or trying
to find each other |
| I did
not understand all this telco bashing. Granted, they're not the ones
that will implement new stuff and they do tend to want solid and prove
solutions. However, this is what the clients want more and more. So
there is one or two things that ca be learned from telcos modes of
operations. |
| I
found myself wondering about the organizatio vs other professional
organizations. Does NANOG have a
educational sub-committee?
a lobbying sub-committee? a R&D sub-committee?
membership sub-committee? Why/how were the
research papers / presenters chosen? Did
NANOG fund some of the research? The context of the presenations
were missing i other words.
It was confusing as to why I was hearing a
presentatio o MPLS over IP. GREAT
PRESENTATION... but why?
I also wonder if there should be more parallel
tracks o Monday and Tuesday, aki to Sunday,
due to the growing audience size. The meet
and greets are excellent use of time. Way
too much use of acronyms... I have bee i the ISP /network business for
8 years and was having trouble keeping up with
all of the acronyms, especially since they were never
identified at the beginning of the presentation. Should be a requirement that the presenter
identify all of the acronyms at least twice
o their slides. |
| I
Tuesday's Sessions: (1) nice to offset all
the BGP discussio with some practical edge tool experience (the worm
attacks, wireless talk); (2) the retrospective talks o Monday were
great; and (3) more tech talks. |
| I
would like more focus o economics -- particularly peering and transit. I additio I would like to have some focus o
the economics of streaming. |
| I
wuld like more tutorials |
| Improve
wireless connectivity |
| IPv4
network connectivity IPv6 reverse lookup lame delegation |
| It
should be mutually beneficial for NANOG to invite more academic
participation, such as giving students discounts or support for
attending |
| It
would be nice if the conference was a day longer so that there wasn't
such a loaded schedule for Monday. Picking
a easy to get too city was great. |
| Keep
bringing i speakers who do good technical talks o current technologies
and problems. |
| Less
concentratio o history, more technical talks are important |
| Locatio
-- Good, but maybe a locatio with more attractions withi walking
distance... Network -- Excellent Oh, and
stick to warm locatio if it's winter! |
| Microphone trouble was irritatio would
enjoy one more day |
| More
discussio o Next-ge BQP would be good. Also, vendor presentatio o
pressio problems would be good. |
| More
i depth tech instructional talks More real time |
| more
operational talks the airbor contagio and life o university network
talks were excellent |
| Move
locatio around |
| Nanog
itself worked very well. The hotel was
only average C- Internet service i room was poor ( whe available)
Quality of rooms and service average Elevators!!! Air conditioning i
presentatio rooms was too cold |
| need
better network connectivity, both wireless and wired |
| network
connectivity seemd degraded as compared to previous NANOG'S |
| network
connectivity was pretty poor, but workable otherwise excellent
organization |
| Organizatio
was good Improvement: Need more Q & A time |
| Pick
a better hotel |
| Sound
system needs to be improved, espesially the floor mics. Some of the
speakers rushed through there presentations, and could bearly
understand what what being said... |
| Sponsors
for food worked well. Improvements.
Not sure! I like the conference. The talks always vary topics which is
good. |
| The 1
1/2 hour lunch was good |
| The
bandwidth provider has serious problems getting my vp traffic back to
my network, and the hotel was a joke. I
can't honestly believe this hotel was chose as a location.
The hotel's logistics were subpar (Elevator
contentio and speed, locked doors and unavailability of convenient
stairwells) and accomodations were substandard; If I set the price of
these rooms, I'd set them at no more tha $100 / night.
The Intercontinental was hundreds of times better. |
| the
beamer images were poor, not enough contrast not enough brightness |
| the
depabe and the peering BPF worked well |
| The
hotel choice sucked--we're i the middle of nowhere |
| The
hotel completely sucked |
| The
hotel left much to be desired. I wuld have peferred a better place. |
| the
hotel was truely horrible understaffed, poor elevators, no food after
11 bad beds |
| the
LA network connectivity was bad the hotel charges for internet access |
| The
large video screens were much too dim The noise of the conf. rooom
doors closing every few seconds was distracting.
They need quieter doors Network connectivity was
truly sad |
| The
locatio of the hotel was horrible. Nothing
decent withi walking distance. The
wireless was a joke. DNS was spotty and
connectivity was slow. |
| The
Miami hotel sucked. Overpriced for what it
was, I'd rather pay a little more and get something much nicer. Not withi walking distance of many interesting
things -- indeed the hotel didn't eve recomend walking around at all. Room service sucked, the rooms were just ok. Need a nicer hotel. Should
encourage more people to use wired ethernet to reduce the problems with
misconfigured wireless. |
| The
Miami Radisso Hotel where this event took place was far, far, far below
standards. My hotel room had defective
plumbing, was infested with ants, blow out
light bulbs, etc. These conditions were not unique to my room, I saw
many of my colleagues rooms i similare states of disrepair. The pool water was dirty, the elevators were
slow and i disrepair, for the most part, the internet either didn't
work, or barely worked i the rooms (it was worlds better i the
lobby/ballroom, but still nowhere near "good"). Everyone
I spoke to from the miami area asked me why a show of this caliber
would be hosted at a hotel well know (formerly as the Omni) as the
worst hotel i miami. Please locate it at a
better hotel next year. Better hotels that
come to mind i the area are the intercontinental from previous miami
nanog fame, or the westi diplomat. |
| The
network connectivity i the mai conference was a complete joke. For a Network Operators Group conference, it
seems that there is a considerable problem operating a stable network. |
| The
network was bad and highly under-provisioned. Need better network
connectivity at Nanogs. |
| The
place for the conference is great. Sunny Miami...should take place i
more sunny places, most NetEngineers work i cold, dark dingy places. ;-) Please extend conference extra days. Extend
Tuturials for extra days. Get AV
equipment that works! Spend too much time troubleshooting equipment
(makes presenters hurried). |
| The
quality of this hotel was a bit poor, especially give the price per
room. Numerous things were missing
from my room o check-in(remote control, broadband outlet, etc), but
were rectified following a call to the front desk - it looked like it
had bee parted out for spares! I also understand that personal items
went missing from some rooms, and others were dirty, with peeling paper
and signs of other poor maintenance. The
lunch buffet provided at the hotel was good, this was especially useful
as there were few other eateries (other tha a couple of burger joints)
nearby (a few minutes walking or cab ride) that could cope with
influxes of diners. The locatio of the
hotel sometimes seemed a bit isolated. Pretty much everywhere needed a
cab ride, if it was more tha a block away. If we're going to stay
downtown, try and stay some place where you ca walk to most facilities
without the need to cross wastelands of parking lots and freeways. |
| The
schedule is efficient, but leaves reasonable time for breaks. Wireless coverage was good whe connectivity
worked. |
| The
staff here at the hotel was very good, but the building leaves
something to be desires. I would like to
see a more ope process for the selectio of hotel venues. |
| The
wireless connectio was very very slow. |
| The
wireless transfer rates and stability definitely need improvement. |
| The
wireless.... did not work for most of Monday |
| This
event seems to be far less political tha IETF ( excellent) |
| This
hotel stunk they charge per minute for local calls |
| This
was by far the worst hotel I've ever attended a NANOG at |
| to be
improved: better wireless connectivity i conference area or surrounding
areas Less getto hotel hotel internet access was poor or unreliable
chipped lunch glasses poor restaurant overpriced |
| too
cold i the meetng rooms thanks for the vegetaria choices |
| Unfortunate
choice of hotels - expensive, i a dumpy area of town, with no working
high speed internet, and ru down. The
Marriott next door is the same cost for attendees, has working high
speed internet, and still has paint stuck
to the walls, unlike the Radisson. The
Salt Lake City hotel wasn't that great either, and these aren't cheap... Ca you try qualifying these a bit better? If it's going to be a dumpy place, it should
at least be less expensive. That said, the
actual NANOG program was good, though the 802.11 infrastructure really
didn't work at all o Monday. Maybe there's
a better way to engineer that for folks (e.g., sticking some 802.11a i
there, ?). |
| using
dynamic dns to detect infected machines o wireless and announce names. do netflow/other analysis of the data such
that people ca be found faster that are DoS'ing the wireless network. |
| Vegas This hotel blows |
| warm
weather worked, should be 4 days not 2 1/2 everything was rushed, I
don't remember a thing as presentors were rushing through presentations
Please include topics that more university oriented Homeland security
topic was geared towards companies. |
| Well-
Breadth of subject covered by the agenda |
| Well,
what did not work well. The wireless network was unsatisfactory. |
| Well: - Sodas and ice available almost all day -
Retrospective was nice, but shouldn't be repeated - Vendor-sponsored
breaks with the vendors there To be
improved: - Check out hotel RF receptio
for major cellular networks - Many network connectivity issues - Would
be good to always have no-carb snack/breakfast food, if available -
Hotel was overall not very nice for a mid-priced hotel (slow elevators,
awkward layout/parking, not much food nearby) |
| What
worked: This is the first time I have see business justificatio brought
up i nanog, which was a really nice change. Seem to have a better mix o
the adgenda. More stimulating turn-out,
meaning for some reason, the attendants were more interesting
conversation. What didn't: This locatio
was tough i that food and other entertainment was not near the hotel. The hotel seriously overbooked and didn't
block out rooms for reservatons.. some people waited until 3am for a
room to become "available'. |
| When
you come to the conference alone (and are lacking i social skills :),
it's hard to get hooked up o social activities during lunches and i the
evenings. Would be nice to suggest a place where participants who are
not otherwise engaged ca hook up. |
| wireless
@nanog is unusable. *must* do some kind of
segmentatio into different channels with different ssids or something
similar. the current situatio is untenable. |
| wireless
connectivity was good whe traffic storms subsided - getting those take
care of would be useful. the separatio
betwee tables was much better for working dow the aisles w/o disturbing
and tripping over folks/bags/etc. |
| Wireless
net problems o Monday morning were a issue Does NANOG need a wireless
management sever that notes limits ( ?) and /or redirects cracked hosts
to a separate server for mitigation? Maybe veriso or rocksteady or some
other wireless management vendor would donate |
| Wireless
network more broke tha usual... ~20% pkt loss Hotel
in-room Internet never did work. Hotel hosting this group should tell
their ISP to make sure all the rooms are ready & working before we
arrive. If the hotel is not up to the task of providing a working
in-room Internet connection, another hotel must be selected. |
| wireless
networking |
| wireless
nics for audience cut i and out signal
wasn't strong enough spotty 802.11 |
| Wireless
overloaded -next time I'll bring ethernet cable |
| wireless
was atrocious people need to clea their infected pc's |
| would
like to see more bof/breakout sessions. strengthe "tracklike" threads |
|
| |
| Do you have suggestions for future NANOG presentations?
(Topics
and/or speakers) |
| -
Review of data analysis tools for NSPs. I
would be happy to organize/moderate. Probably
want to do one o ope source, and one o commercial, with comparisons
(i.e. adlex vs. niksun, arbor vs. ...). Probably
would want a panel or two, and a BOF for foll |
| BGP/MPL were quite represented pseadomire (?) seems to
be a good topic VoIP i general could be a subtopic for a entire session |
| day 2
was a good mix |
| Disaster
Recovery Techniques, Server Load Balancing, Session-Initiated-Protocol. |
| distributed
DNS |
| DNS;
DOS attacks Hardening systems |
| General
comment:doors to mai meeting room were noisy and no amount of care
allowd someone to close the door withut making a lot of noise. Perhaps
one door culd have bee left open. |
| have
a IETF/IAB/IRTF update is nice |
| How
real Networks are built MPLS and
Multiservice edge Operating a Multivendor network |
| I am
sure that the New Projects group at the RIPE NCC <np@ripe.net>
could offer something about the various things we're working on. |
| I
would like to hear more o operating networks... real troubles and fixes |
| I
would like to see more o the educational side, case
studies with more CLI Some of the best BGP
folk i the world are there and it would be
so helpful for them to go over how they have fine tuned thier configs
and why... |
| IPSEC.
QoS |
| IPv6
implementatio experience, esp. experience with IPv6/IPv4 hybridenets. Are transitio mechaniissms being used? If so,
how? |
| IPv6
peering BOF |
| ISP Automatio (what
works what does not) |
| large
window integratio w/ ethernet framing. |
| less
history, more future.. What ever happened to discussing future
possibilites.. Where is switching going? What
do we _need_ from hardware i the future? What
new standards are being worked o and why? The
Growth/Shrinking of IXs.. What ever happened to v6? (I know the urgency
has dropped off, but perhaps the community could pla rather tha react). /2cents |
| maybe
security, but I guess it belongs to other forums |
| Maybe
we ca get some VoIP or IP telephony speakers? |
| more
"operations" contric |
| More
i actual mpls deployments, bgp research, etc. |
| more
operational content tha nanog 30. history&review
is good and fu but too much time was spent o that and not enough o the
operational challenges that are being faced. |
| More
presentations from government agencies. The
presentatio from Diane Sidebottom was a great start, but should have
bee longer or eve a BOF. |
| more
time for discussion i realize that many talks generated little
discussion, but i many the discussio was cut off shortly after it began |
| more
tools talk. people who have built systems
(commercial or free) that demonstrate interesting technology and study
related to running of networks. |
| more
university networks |
| Multicast
seems to be increasing o most networks - time to look at optimizing
multicast routing. Also, real-world experience from operators who have
deployed MPLS would be very interesting. |
| NANOG
caters to the ISP community. Some large
corporations are interested i peering "natively" rather tha just
"buying it"... Perhaps a NANOG "welcome wagon" or "the .coms are
coming" would be illustrative... This was done i a BOF, but could it be
promoted to a talk? |
| network
optimization routing presentations were gold - keep it up operational
experice w/MPLS FRR |
| No
more MPLS. |
| Overall
it was great |
| Peering
policies Traffic measurement Network validatio and audit techniques |
| Practical
stuff. |
| security
topics i general |
| separate
the topics and make simultaneous sessions eliminate the historic
session, wasting 1/2 hour hearing about x.25 and toke ring was not nice |
| Someone
from the US DoD involved i making IPv6 mandatory for all vendors could
make for a interesting talk. Having
a sessio o service provider VoIP offerings could be interesting too. Folks like vonage, gobeam, at&t, l3 could
provide a variety of perspectives o the challenges and successes of
doing this, what qos is required, etc. This
would be more of a "outside-in" and apps perspective tha the typical
NANOG "inside-out" infrastructure view and would be pretty fresh I
think. |
| The
debate over traditional, anonymous end-to-end and filtering & ISP
policy seems to harde into camps that aren't communicating
real well. There may be no solution. It
would be interesting to hear more from groups like Homeland Security
& SPAM abatement who want/need ennd user or pert flow
authentication. If future of Internet
requires much more info |
| This
program is missing o big friver There are many applicatio ddridving the
survivability that have a well documented economic value |
| Topic
title/subject needs to more closely match content For example, the "How
to Kill worms and Virus" talk did not cover this at all Similary the
End-to-End Spam talk only covered the End to End |
| topic:
IP capacity planning Speaker: Jennifer Rexford |
| Topocs:
SIP VOIP Free Love DHLP vs. static registration-DHCP authentication
Sever load balancing i the network backbone |
| Tue-Thurs
for the three days to give attendees Monday and Frid to travel |
| video
sservices campus network designs dorm rooms and how to handle them |
| VoIP |
| Yes
-- see above. "The Economics of Streaming,
Peering and Transit" |
|
|
| 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. |
| About
each user, the maybe tradition, anonymous ETE Internet/ca no longer
meet the needs? |
Max Southall PEAK Internet
Oregon msouthall@peak.org
|
| Why
not try to host at a university? |
Yes
we would... Probably not until fall, however.
|
|
Back to the NANOG30 main page.
|
