1. A good tutorial, would have been interesting to hear about vendor interoperability.
2. Very Good
3. Well done, very informative
4. Very good. Explained the concepts very clearly and answered the questions being asked during presentation clearly.
5. n/a
6. Did not attend
7. Good presentation - too short perhaps asMP2MP was not covered problems with slide availability on the site
8. N/A
9. n/a
10. Could have been better.
11. Awesome!
12. Good presentation.
13. n/a
14. i did not attend this
15. Good
16. Pretty informative, was hoping for more practical information. Questions seemed to get bogged down in minutia
17. Did not attend
18. This was a good presentation to peak intrest in the technology.
19. Not attended.
20. Exciting stuff; we may be interested in buying mcast transit services soon.
21. interesting topic. Would be great to see more presentations on this track
22. did not attend... sounds interesting though
23. This was a great session both speakers were very knowledgeable
24. N/A
25. Informative.
26. na
27. Did not attend
28. Unfortunately too much time to go in-depth with the more sophisticated and interesting stuff. Suggestion for future presentations is to skip the trivial RSVP/LDP work-through to save more time for the advanced stuff.
29. n/a
30. don't attend
31. Excellent! I am not completely versed in MPLS, but I understood everything they were laying out, including the finer points of why these protocols were useful, how they interoperated, and the difference between the RSVP-TE and the mLDP approaches. Excellent speakers, and they responded to audience questions specifically and very well.

1. very enlightening, though I was not appreciative of slides 47/48
2. Didn't attend.
3. not attended
4. Arrived a little late but found it very informative.
5. Very informative. I have only interacted with the end point configuration and its nice to see how the MPLS works as a whole.
6. did not attend.
7. n/a
8. Excellent as RAS's are, but a bit short at only about a hour. Can we ask RAS for .333 of the registration? :-)
9. Did not attend
10. Excellent Primer on the subject. I found it very useful and forwarded it to my staff,
11. nice high level overview
12. Solid overview, I liked it.
13. Great presentation, especially the graphic representation of TE preemption
14. Very nice presentation, did not dive into technical configuration details, which was a good thing, provided enough information to get to know the concepts of the protocol
15. Good but fast. It would be nice if there was more time for this session
16. A very nice summary. Particularly useful was the pointer to the environments or situations where various alternatives are typically used.
17. Great speaker.
18. Great as always!
19. Awesome!
20. incredibly informative and interesting
21. Great presentaion
22. Good but quite short
23. As always RAS is very informative
24. his session was very helpful and the presenter was very skillful about MPLS.
25. Okay
26. Good overview
27. Excellent. Although if that was for dummies, I'd love to see the "For Cretins."
28. Informative base of MPLS and its use. Enjoyed the technical clarity and detail that he went into.
29. very useful
30. Great lecture, very informative, excellant presentation
31. Good beginner's introduction.
32. Missed first part. Will watch online later (and happy to have that opportunity!)
33. Great intro from a network engineer's perspective. Finished early though and the break wasn't prepared.
34. Great intro, covered aspects that vendor documentation doesn't completely cover.
35. did not see this talk. Applicable to this level of attendee knowledge?
36. This was a great class. Would love to see more of this.
37. Well presented.
38. did not attend
39. N/A
40. Very educational and a great speaker.
41. leet
42. solid, thorough, presentation. met expectations.
43. Good, a little hard to follow at times, may just be my lack of experience level.
44. Did not attend, but would have liked to if I'd gotten here earlier.
45. Great talk about MPLS.
46. Very informative and well-thought-out.
47. Very useful introduction. Hope the name didn't turn people off... it was not for dummies.
48. Well presented - very good topic
49. Rather interesting
50. Very good, even for someone who operates an MPLS network, revisiting some ideas gave me things to think about.
51. excellent overview, with good insights on why as well has the how. go ras
52. Informative. Too much detail on TE relative to other MPLS configuration.
53. what I saw was very good!
54. very good!
55. Great informative tutorial
56. Good - "For dummies" should be more for dummies :)
57. The talk was very informative but it did assume quite a bit of knowledge. I felt it was more of a medium-level discussion rather than for Dummies.
58. Interesting useful talk, as ever from Ras
59. Very informative. Appreciated the bottom-up description, and what MPLS can and can not do.
60. Very good presentation. Lot's of details. Maybe a bit too compact
61. Good overview of MPLS, particularly for a dummy like me. Steenbergen tutorials are always first rate.
62. Good presenter, interesting topic
63. good presentation. Richard made effective use of humor both in the slide deck and in his delivery of the material.

1. Didn't attend.
2. not attended
3. did not attend.
4. i'm beginning to administer ospf in my network. i know nothing about IS-IS. i was glad to hear one is not necessarilly better than the other.
5. Really interesting and useful
6. Good content, but seemed of limited interest.
7. An excellent view of what routing protocol is better
8. Very Good
9. Useful. The presentation would have benefitted by having some pictures and figures. It was too texty.
10. Well detailed. I decided to switch to the session above since it was also of high interest.
11. N/A
12. Good comparison
13. n/a I wish I didnt miss it, I was at the mpls for dummies.
14. It was a good update
15. Awesome!
16. n/a
17. Very useful, specially for a neutral point of view. The presentation was intended to expose the differences, not for force you to chose.
18. Okay, somewhat informative....
19. i did not attend this
20. Great
21. Did not attend
22. Not attended.
23. did not see this talk. Applicable to this level of attendee knowledge?
24. Very revelant to our current situation.
25. did not attend
26. N/A
27. na
28. n/a
29. n/a
30. not engaging
31. The title would have been better if it hinted that it was going to talk about IGPs
32. material a little dry

1. He is right.
2. not attended
3. Gave me a few ideas and also pointed out a few area's I need to improve configuration management in our network.
4. More detail would be an improvement, but useful
5. did not attend.
6. good, but didn't really tell me anything i didn't already know and do. but NCG is new to me, might give it a whirl.
7. Useful and engaging
8. Very good. Interesting content and good presentation.
9. A usefull tools to know how to manage the network and save configurations
10. Pretty good overall. There may have been a bit too much advertising of the need for automating configurations for veteran NANOG'ers, but I think overall, the content was right on.
11. Interisting
12. Did not attend
13. Very interesting. We're at a perfect point to consider this topic. Very glad to get Brent's overview.
14. i can't wait to contribute to this program. it has been needed for a long time.
15. Maybe the best thing I saw at NANOG 49, (I can't tell yet -) I have some automation and will certainly check out Brent's recommendations.
16. Great idea, but quickly became a sales pitch for the open-sourced program.
17. Useful tools. Lots of potential.
18. Excellent presentation, describe the fact s about network deployment really well.
19. I enjoyed all the points Brent offered, and learned the correct pronounciation of Netomata. He gave us a very good talk on the principles of configuration management, but ran out of time to show us the actual Netomata interface.
20. Good. Again. More time needed. He could have covered turn up of his software.
21. This was an area new to me so good to see.
22. Great
23. n/a
24. Informative and enjoyable. Well presented.
25. was not able to attend
26. generic, and boring
27. n/a
28. Very useful too. At our ISP we already use some of the apps commented, but a lot were new to us.
29. Good to learn about a few tools I had not tried or used.
30. Good
31. Went long, wanted him to focus more on the solution and skip the justification slides.
32. Loved this. Plan on getting involved in the community.
33. Good side conversation and hints.
34. Very good presentation skills. Appreciated the presenter for that. He did say he knew his audience, yet covered a lot of the basics at the start. Could have skipped that part to get more into his tool.
35. this was a great presentation and very informative.
36. Helpful. Good references to useful tools. Made me realize I have to learn some ruby.
37. Looks like I should have been sat in this one rather than the OTN one.
38. Pretty good.
39. Good philosophy, but automatic generation of configs depends on the device being config-friendly. It's not feasible in our Cisco environment - can't reload every time we make a config change.
40. good talk with interesting content. Speaker very good and knowledgeable.
41. Very interesting. Good job of explaining concisely what the specific tool does, and in general what the advantages and issues are with automated configuration.
42. good...was hoping for more hands-on with NCG though
43. Excellent, though could have skimmed the rationale slides for the audience. GREAT to have those in the archives for folks who need to make the arguments. We need more hands-on or followup to actually using/work with the ngc toolset.
44. did not attend
45. N/A
46. very helpful slides
47. Interesting, covered questions well.
48. n/a
49. Good talk that gave a great description of the benefits to using automated tools.
50. Very good and useful presentation.
51. Well presented and clean.
52. Start of a subject area which will be a hot topic for the next few years - good presentation
53. somehwat high level and appeared to be aimed at a less technical crowd
54. this is a very useful topic, and it was a dense presentation. there was a large amount of data presented.
55. Very good. Useful open-source tools discussed.
56. what I saw was very good!
57. VERY useful!
58. Good, I just missed power blocks in conference room
59. Informative and interesting. kudos
60. Only attended the last 30 minutes. Excellent presentation
61. I attended and enjoyed this tutorial
62. Great session and very relevant.
63. Makes a good case for automation, but he didn't go into his own produce (NCG) enough to see it in action. But I guess that's what the links to the Web site are for.

1. Did not attend.
2. ok
3. Was ok.
4. ok. not immediately applicable to my network.
5. Overall a good overview of the technology. However, the presentation had insufficient concreteness.
6. Did not attend
7. N/A
8. n/a
9. Good.
10. g
11. The difference with the S1 session à 2:00 was not clear.
12. n/a
13. Did not attend.
14. Not attended.
15. did not see this talk but slides looked interesting.
16. did not attend
17. This session was spectacular Shenkar provided an exellent in-depth overview(oxymoron?)
18. N/A
19. Informative.
20. na
21. n/a
22. Unfortunately too much time to go in-depth with the more sophisticated and interesting stuff. Suggestion for future presentations is to skip the trivial RSVP/LDP work-through to save more time for the advanced stuff.
23. n/a
24. didn't attend
25. this was tougher presentation -- perhaps since the state of the technology is such that there fewer real world implementations to use as examples.

1. Good overview.
2. NA
3. I sat in on this but for my job personally I did not find it useful.
4. did not attend.
5. NEAT
6. Found this to be very useful. However, the speaker was using updated presentation that was not yet posted to the nanog websit.
7. Good presentation
8. N/A
9. Very heavy.
10. put me to sleep
11. very good
12. Interesting topic but too many details on the terminology rather than the technology
13. Pretty high level, didn't seem to cover anything I couldn't figure out on my own
14. Did not attend.
15. useful
16. Slow, too detailed if not an expert
17. Interesting, a bit dry.
18. Not attended.
19. Good topic, massacred by a hideously dull, monotonous speaker who made me lose the will to live. Ballroom also freezing cold during that session.
20. did not see this talk but slides looked interesting.
21. Reasonable. Speaker was a bit monotonic in nature but decent content otherwise.
22. did not attend
23. N/A
24. Good data, but crazy thick -- to be expected.
25. na
26. n/a
27. Walked out. Boring to the point of pain.
28. n/a
29. didn't attend
30. Good talk, challenging topic to present (imo)
31. Below average - I have never seen a NANOG preso with so many vendor marketing slides in it.
32. Interesting topic, presentation style a bit dry

1. Have not visited yet
2. Haven't seen yet.
3. good
4. Nice to have!
5. didn't go
6. Very Good
7. did not attend
8. so far the only one i found is just used for power, not demos
9. N/A
10. n/a
11. It is a little clear what's going on in here.
12. Very cool but too much of a break room environment
13. At least as of Sunday... not a lot of gear in there. So what's the point?
14. missed this
15. No comment.
16. Have not been yet.
17. Was pretty empty when I first went in early Sunday.
18. Quiet place to work, but got to meet A10 rep we've been working with.
19. Please change the name of this. It's awful. It doesn't suggest that it's aimed at the attendees, it sounds like it's "by vendors, for vendors".
20. would be good to see more substantial demo or integration
21. Nice, I like it...
22. N/A
23. nice.
24. n/a
25. have not been there yet
26. got blank looks from people when I did go to this
27. It made a quiet place to have a concall ;-)
28. Thumbs up!
29. I intend on seeing this soon.
30. Great concept and very interesting, keep it up!

1. good to hear all the questions surrounding the Merit/NANOG split
2. Nice.
3. fiesty
4. Had a blast. Met quite a few people and hope to build more relationships tonight at the social
5. Excellent, except that it was a bit crowded.
6. didn't go
7. Such a bore. As a meeting attendee, I can appreciate the amount of effort that goes into organizing a Nanog meeting. However, it was a total waste of time to be walked through every nitty-gritty of the future nature of the NANOG as an organizatrion. It would have been much better to just email out those details in advance, and have people comment on those on the mailing list....with a time-cap on how long was actually spent in people needlessly venting-off in the meeting. I came to this meeting to have people talk about technical topics....
8. Well run, but surprisingly calm. Where was all of the outrage and anger? Where was the blood?
9. Very Good
10. did not attend
11. great! it was a little too packed though.
12. Huge strides for the community and NANOG at large. Go NewNOG
13. I was surprised I didn't see more blood on the floor. Well handed by Steve and gang.
14. A very interesting discussion and plan. I am concerned about the lack of a backup plan.
15. n/a
16. I enjoyed the comments about the upcoming proposed transition.
17. nice, and fun
18. Entertaining
19. liked the open forum format
20. They needed to release more planning data and vision data ahead of time.
21. good, but politics really got in the way
22. Good
23. No comment.
24. extremely useful
25. Very interesting discussion around the transition.
26. Excellent meeting, glad folks behaved. Do need to see the pro forma finances though... as well as the worst case scenarios. Echoing Randy, we elected the SC just get everything together and tell us where we are. No need to encourage too much debate here, we'll vote in October.
27. Loud and cramped.
28. Very good. General endorsement from the community to just "get on with it"
29. more time, get more discussion - more than 10 minutes needed
30. Well presented. Good job presenting a useful summary of the transition, without getting into all the details meant for the later BoF.
31. Very interesting discussion related to the current NANOG community.
32. circular, repetitive arguments resulting from misunderstanding of the newnog revolution...
33. Sad to see we lost money in Austin. Could have been more boring, but a nice level of adoption of the new direction. Hopefully the lack of major response means the Monday evening session will not be a major issue.
34. This was good. Discussing NANOG futures as NewNOG was a good use of this time.
35. Great!
36. N/A
37. very handy. I enjoyed listening to Randy Bush
38. would have liked to hear more hard data from Dr. Welch and the MERIT crew.
39. lively, and useful for background.
40. A touch crowded but fun :-)
41. n/a
42. I didn't gain much from this. I expected more to meet the community instead of the political/layer9 that was. I realize this is important for the community, but it seems more backchannel (or "meta") that's not relevant to how I run a network.
43. Very interesting. Good to air the discussion. Symbolic of the further divorce of Internet and Academia.
44. Very interesting! Too much unsaid for political reasons.
45. It was interesting to hear about newnog.
46. Answered some questions, left others unanswered. Still didn't identify the problems with the Merit relationship and how transition will fix it.
47. good
48. very good but the raffle draw was inaudible and most people missed it
49. Thrilling!
50. Lots of fun...
51. Good meeting, although wonder if some of the translation discussion will be duplicated with Monday's meeting
52. Reasonably constructive.
53. was very well handled.
54. It was a well-managed discussion of a potentially difficult situation.
55. Everybody kept their manners in check, commendable but somewhat less entertaining ;)
56. oh yes the community meeting was very exciting. best in recent memory
57. need better way feedback of soliciting feedback from remote-attendees -- a jabber room was mentioned/requested, so perhaps for next time.

1. Did not go to it as I am not newcomer..
2. Good introduction, also the other newcomers.
3. good
4. Stayed out too late to visit this morning....
5. Excellent. Met two very interesting people. Made a couple of great new contacts and made my first nanog meeting much more welcoming then I would have expected.
6. This was not for the Newcomers breakfast but for the other breakfast. The Burritos did not say anything about cheese in the description but they clearly had cheese. This was a bummer due to I don't eat cheese. That being said. The bite I did eat made me SO miss cheese. ;)
7. Good breakfast, though was missing some hot breakfast for veggies.
8. didn't go
9. Playing cards were not explained upon entry, but bfast was a good meet-n-greet none-the-less.
10. It was well organized.
11. Great opportunity to meet new attendees.
12. Very well done. I liked the new format. Let's never do the old introduce everyone aver again.
13. Very Good
14. did not attend
15. Thumbs up!
16. N/A
17. Perfect
18. good food
19. I'm missing toast :)
20. It was great to meet new folks
21. great
22. Newcomer's breakfast was good. Need a better room without so many visual obstructions to the viewers.
23. went to the wrong room and missed this
24. Fnatastic. great free breakfast i have had in a long time
25. Good
26. Did not attend.
27. Great setup.
28. Great. Met other first timers.
29. fantastic. love the opportunity interact with new people and help them get the most out of the conference and community.
30. Good start and friendly environment.
31. Perfect for what it was.
32. Thank you
33. Much improved. However there should have been more information for newcomers about how to get the best out of the NANOG meeting - about the format of the meeting (general session talks, BoFs and tracks, beer and gear), the networking aspect of NANOG, hallway conversations and how those people lounging around outside of the hallways aren't skiving off, but are actually conducting serious business. Should also poll newcomers at each meeting as to how many of them are attending because they are local, and how many can only attend meetings that are local.
34. Great breakfast, good info on the community and the roles within!
35. Delicious
36. Nom.
37. well attended and organised
38. Good mingling. I met new folks, some of whom are first-time sponsors!
39. Very nice, Folks were friendly to us newcommers
40. N/A
41. Well organised
42. n/a
43. Good venue for newcomer to get to know about NANOG.
44. Decent grub, clever way to mix people up.
45. Very well run thank you
46. Informative, and a nice way to meet people i would have otherwise not met
47. Very good.
48. Interesting, would have liked to have more time to introduce myself.
49. did not attend
50. n/a
51. nice to put faces to names and meet other newcomers
52. Good social. Cards were a good strategy.
53. yes. unfortunately the fruit was very sour
54. have not had breakfast yet.

1. IMHO we don't need the venue air-conditioned that hard.
2. I wish I could go to all of them.
3. So far it's been excellent.
4. The hotel network is not aimed at 500+ NANOGers. It's sllllooooowwww. nanoga works well :)
5. Holy crap its cold in the main room.
6. great so far.
7. Transportation section of the NANOG 49 web page is not accurate. 1. BART is the Bay Area Rapid Transit 2. Fare from San Francisco airport is $8.10 3. Take Pittsburg/Bay Point train to Powell Street
8. Nicely done "agenda handout"s.

However, minor scope for improvement: The agenda handouts would have looked even better if the presentation topics were more prominently written for each talk....rather than sit embedded underneath the time, and venue.
9. great venue.
10. A great mix of people, relevant topics and an enjoyable experience.
11. It's been great, but the Startlight Room was too small for this large a crowd and all of the booze with no food probably made ofr some very unhappy people on Monday morning. (Yes, I realize that this is not directly a NANOG issue.)
12. It's my first time...excellent
13. Well, the Sunday night reception kind of stunk. If you're going to say, "open bar until 10PM," I don't want to show up at 9:20 and have to pay $8 for a *bottle* of Anchor Steam. Come on! If you're going to place a cap on the "open" bar, then tell us up-front or give us all tickets for a single free drink. DNS may be sexy (actually, it is), but bait-and-switch is not. I had a better time at the hotel Clock Bar, which has real cocktails and real bartenders.
14. Nothing
15. Overall, pretty good.
16. Off to a good start! Really enjoy NANOG and this seems a fine one so far.
17. it's almost too big, cuts down on meeting the core people, but it's great to see so many involved
18. Giving incentives for survey is a very good idea !
19. Signage for rooms could be improved
20. Looks good.
21. Good times.

I still wish NANOG would be consistent with the hotel chain chosen.

Further, fully non-smoking hotels suck.
22. So far, so good
23. Nope.
24. Impressed
25. good work
26. So far, so good.
27. Great socials so far,,,,,we need to keep that going.
28. No.
29. thanks! well organized
30. good so far
31. good time so far
32. No
33. Well run so far
34. if possible have the presentation pdf/ppt in advance
35. Very useful so far.
36. great first few talks for monday!
37. so far so good
38. Sunday night social was great
39. Loving it so far.
40. Very impressed.
41. A+++ would attend again!
42. great program.
43. Would like to attend again. Excellent topics for talks.
44. Great venue, great city.
45. Needs to be more power strips due to greedy people bringing multiple laptops and screens. I had to be a jerk more than once and call them on their BS, but people expect unlimited power these days.
46. Well set up and run.
47. Coffee in the breaks is, so far, hideous. It's been stewed to hell, and the milk is running out and not being replenished.

Also there's no natural light in the circulation areas outside of the ballroom, consider this when choosing future venues, it's nice to see a bit of daylight occasionally, even as a network engineer who sits in a darkened room normally.
48. Pretty good so far.
49. good agenda and some interesting topics looking forward to.
50. 2nd largest NANOG attendee list, yaaaa!
51. All good thus far, very nice job by Netflix folk!
52. Slides are not getting posted quickly. :-( good for the remote participants and those of us in the room with bas eyes.
53. None so far :)
54. The wireless is kinda broken
55. good agenda, good show!
56. very nice location. Unfortunately, starlight room event was a cash bar, so did not stay, otherwise, very easy check-in, and good facilities.
57. Hotel is gorgeous.
58. Well organized. The Grand ballroom is well set up; network, power, audio, and visuals are good.
59. so far it is a great meeting
60. The content has been very good so far. Good Job to the PC.
61. Very good
62. So far, so good.
63. dns IS sexy, isn't it?
64. Temperature in Grand Room is very cold. People are coughing and putting on shirts
65. San Francisco is an expensive city to walk around in, at least from my perspective -- I live in Charlottesville, a smallish city in Virginia. I guess I should expand my horizons, rather than asking the city to change for me, but it's been painful trying to feed my family. Excellent public transport, though, wow!!
66. Very good meeting thus far.
67. well organized. fundamentals good: network connectivity; presenter materials available on-line; venue seating adequate, sound system okay. would be good for streamed presentations to have a jabber room, etc. for remote attendees to ask questions of the presenter. from a green(er) perspective i appreciate water coolers versus water bottles!