NANOG 35
Los Angeles, California
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 (53)
Useful (99) No
opinion (2) Not very
useful (0)
Useless (0)
If you have attended a
previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare?
Better (56)
About the same (52)
Worse (5) N/A (46)
How did you like the program (the Monday-Tuesday General Session)?
The choice of topics was:
Well Chosen (51)1
(78)2 (18)3 (3)4 (1)5 Poorly Chosen
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (35)1
(89)2 (25)3 (3)4 (0)5 Unsatisfactory
The speakers were:
Excellent (33)1
(92)2 (26)3 (4)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.
A few longer talks might be good.
A little heavy on IPv6, which was intersting but more than I could
handle. Great talk from Huston on Internet Futures.
Always a fan of Van Jacobson. Keep him coming back please.
BGP Filtering by Jim Deleskie, Tom Scholl, and Todd Underwood was
excellent. The netflow presentations by Van Jacobson and Richard
Steenbergen/Nathan Patrick was also excellent. Many other
presentations were still boring and monotone (Peer-assisted content,
BLINC, etc). The Won't get fooled again presentation was a lot of
random nonsense, though at least opinionated and not as boring as some
of the other talks. The Peering BOF and the v6 Multihoming BOF
should not have been held at the same time, many participants were
complaining about having to pick one or the other. All in all, an
improvement over many recent NANOG's.
Geoff Houston
Geoff Huston needs to make a point.
Geoff Huston was pure gold. Make sure and get him back often.
Geoff Huston's talk "Won't Get Fooled Again" was very insightful.
Thanks Geoff. Van Jacobson's talk was very interesting. The
research talks were hard to comprehend.
Henk's talk could have been more edited. Otherwise, I thought the
Monday program was ace.
I like the lack of MPLS talks.
I liked the v6 conference topics, more please.
I really appreciate the interaction between IETF and NANOG operator
community on IPv6 and SHIM6. This was the most helpful part of the
program to me.
I truly enjoyed Geoff Huston's "We won't get fooled again talk". The
talk on BGP Filtering was quite interesting, and I'd like to see a
follow up on it. Talk on Cogent-Level (3) depeering was also extremely
insightful.
IAB discussion was particularly interesting
IPv6 & Netflow Based Traffic
Jacobson was great Geoff Huston talks were terrific Peering
BOF should be every NANOG The IPv6 tutorial speaker was very
good-Provide follow up on opportunities through the program to build on
what was learned
Language problems with a few, timing problems with many. Please
plan for longer talks, or at least some form of cushion into the
schedule.
level3 speaker (ipv6/6pe) not so good todd underwood very good
maybe a little too much about netflow
More BOFs like VOIP Need more enterprise speakers
More realistic allocation of time for each presentation would be nice.
Unrealistic to expect speakers to be able to deliver 1 slide per minute.
Much better logistics and better quality of presentations than last
year and years past. Nicely done.
Much improved over Las Vegas
One of the best programs we have had in recent years. Very strong
presentations, and excellent well thought out content that drew
questions and discussion. Slight issue with timing, lots of
overrunning, but it happens! Longer coffee breaks were appreciated.
Only attended day 2 (Tuesday) Particularly liked:
Should Internet SP fear peer-assisted Content BLINC
D(3) Peered
Overall I attend NANOG for operational knowledge. I always learn a lot.
I think the program is well managed.
Research forum was the last session of NANOG. Since, the goal of this
forum is to get feedback from people, having it at an earlier time can
give people a chance to talk about the work.
Rick Wesson talk was interesting. Opening talk on Tuesday was
excellent. BOF format was excellent (afternoon sessions).
Several speakers were unintelegible because of accents
Several talks went overtime.
Speakers always seemed challeneged. This is not confined to network
profession.
The new programs with a general meeting in the morning and BOFs in the
afternoon was excellent.
The presentation on "Routers with small buffers" does justice to the
term analysis. That is the kind of data and research that should show
up in more presentations.
The tools talks are very exciting.
There were some excellent speakers, Geoff, ina, Chris. The others were
good .
This was one of the best general sessions I've been to in a long
time. Kudos to Todd Underwood for yet another wonderful
presentation, and to Geoff Huston for an eye-opening look at a
possible future. (Todd Underwood: D(3)peered: Just
the Facts Ma'am Geoff Huston: Won't Get.Fooled Again?)
This was overall an excellent NANOG for me.
Topics were far better than past. Very nice to see more business
factors combined w/operator issues.
Very good NANOG this time around excellent meeting.
Way too much IPv6, too much intro-level content
Well done all around. Average quality seems to have improved
(typographical errors, as in the blacklist talk, not wistanding).
Why everyone speak about ipV6? maybe some other fields on subjects
would be more interesting.
You need to give Van more time!
How did you like the tutorials?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (27)1
(48)2 (11)3 (5)4 (0)5 Poorly Chosen (52)N/A
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (17)1
(48)2 (21)3 (2)4 (2)5 Unsatisfactory (52)N/A
The speakers were:
Excellent (21)1
(46)2 (13)3 (4)4 (1)5 Unsatisfactory (56)N/A
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.
could be better if the speakers speak slower and more fluent english.
Good and informative presentation by Ina Minei on Scaling
Considerations in MPLS Networks.
I am not fond of tutorials for the masses. They do nothing to help
individual implementation.
I attended the "Traffic Matrix" and 2nd part of "BGP Multihoming"
tutorials and liked both. I learned a few interesting things.
I only attended the IPv6 Workshop which was very good.
I thoroughly enjoyed the NANOG/ARIN Jointly provided IPv6 Workshop and
gained a great deal of hands-on exposure to IPv6. Jordi was great
!
I wish the IPv6 tutorial spent less time on the tunneling exercise and
more time on neighbor discovery/auto config, perhaps a reasonable
backbone addressing scheme for service providers, and a discussion of
the v6 multihoming problem.
Ina had a great talk. the ipv6 tutorial was good too.
IPv6 could've gone more into ISP implementation.
IPv6 topic was relevant and timely, but tutorial was poorly organized
and spent most of its time on how to run various commands. I was
hoping for some more theory of operation information and big picture
info, followed by some details on configuration. As it turned
out, the day was entirely devoted to configuration details with no
particular objective that I could discern. After a couple hours
of meandering "work on your own to run these commands" in the middle of
the tutorial, I just left.
Disappointing.
IPv6 tutorial (yes, I know it was ARIN's thing) was overly WinXP
focused.
IPv6 tutorial was excellent by Jordi
IPv6 workshop on Sunday: The speaker should have worked through the
hands-on portion of the workshop with the audience and projected it on
the screen instead of just asking the audience to do it. BGP
Multihoming tutorial: The speaker was very good and the presentation
was very polished and informative.
MPLS Scalability tutorial tried so hard to be non-vendor specific that
the talk became quite "general". It would have been more pragmatic to
have some multi-vendor deep dive information so that I can take away
the real operational "gotchyas".
Philip is always good...
Really enjoyed MPLS scaling tutorial - balanced presentation on design
decisions based on overall design goals.
The IPv6 tutorial was very timely, but focused very heavily on
Windows XP only. (Getting Started with IPv6 Jordi
Palet) The MPLS scaling was a bit too theoretical; I feel
like they represented opposite ends of the utility spectrum--one
was too specific, the other too general. (Scaling
Considerations in MPLS Networks Ina Minei)
The IPv6 workshop was too high level.
the TCP/IP all day tutorial could have been far better laid out and
presented
Tools tutorial might be interesting
Tutorials are generally regarded as uninteresting by experienced
network operators, and not attended.
Very disappointed with IPv6 (Patel) - I was hoping for network prep,
not host toys/tools. MPLS scaling issues was too abstract.
Would like to see more enterprise side issues. eg MPLS in corporate
networks.
How did you like the BOFs?
The choice of topic was:
Well Chosen (55)1
(57)2 (15)3 (4)4 (11)5 Poorly Chosen (0)N/A
The level of detail in the presentations was:
Excellent (40)1
(59)2 (25)3 (6)4 (11)5 Unsatisfactory (0)N/A
The speakers were:
Excellent (42)1
(56)2 (22)3 (#)4 (7)5 Unsatisfactory (11)N/A
Please give us your comments on the BOF.
Add a BOF for ISP issues
BGP tools BOF: Should have used a larger room. Some brief demo during
each presentation would have been useful.
Both the shim6 and BGP bofs were very good! (IAB IPv6 Multihoming
BOF Dave Meyer) (BGP Data Analysis BOF Mohit Lad, Lixia Zhang,
and Yiguo Wu, UCLA Nick Feamster, MIT Dan Massey, Colorado
State University Manish Karir, Merit) Loved the
level of detail on those!
Do NOT put the "peering" BOF in conflict with a "multi-homing" BOF
(DUH!!)
Glad to have them moved to a time when you are not competing to attend
the BOF you want.
Good BGP analysis BOF. BOF screen too low for people at the back to
read. Missed Security BOF due to conflict.
Good range of topics but could use more discussion time.
I attended peering BOF and it was good.
I like Monday afternoon BOF's!
I like the new time format
I liked them earlier on Monday, that was definitely helpful. In
the evening makes for a long day.
I really enjoyed the Peering BOF. A well chosen topic, and good
audience participation.
I really liked having these in the new times -- I was awake and they
were well-attended
It was okay. MOre of a bitch fest rather than anything else. The voip
security was good.
It was the best part of meeting after BeerNgear party!
More time for BOF would be good.
Need more BOFs VOIP/content
Needs to be more security driven
Nice to have the BOFs during the day but it would also be nice to have
them sequential since I still had clashes on where I wanted to be.
Overlapping the SHIM6 and peering bof really makes me mad. I
wanted to go to both.
Peering BOF debate was good-keep up the dynamic nature of audience
engagement. Excellent choice of Peering personals a the end-keep it
focused and short of the Peering BOF
Peering BOF is always entertaining and worth while.
Peering BOF was excellent. V6 multihoming BOF should not have
overlapped it. I appreciate that many people felt like they were
unable to attend the nighttime BOFs previously, do to travel and sleep
schedules, however I still feel the move was a mistake. The added time
pressure of following a schedule during the day greatly restricted the
flow of conversation which makes for a good BOF. Nighttime BOFs make
for greater attendance, more free-form discussion, and perhaps less
inhibited discussion. This is what BOFs are all about, and normally
what makes them the best part of a NANOG meeting.
Peering BOF was exciting by its format.
Peering BOF was rushed. Obviously there were time issues, but it should
have been longer; peering personals should have invited more people as
well. There should also be a part of the peering bof dedicated to
various IX's. Some IX's offer some features (torix..etc) that most paid
IX operators do not provide. It would be nice to see what other IX's
are doing, so not only can the IX's see what else is out there, but,
what potential peers could see as well.
Security BOF was a bit disappointing, alot of time was spent on SPAM,
something that NANOG I think needs to spend less time on. I felt the
same way vgill did. Was happy to not see the typical Security
BOF/Cymru/Barry Greene setup, was nice to break out of it. Would like
to see some Security BOF presentations on more shocking topics, the
kind that might rile the vendors up (lets discuss router
vulnerabilities that exist today). BOFs in general
seemed too rushed.
Peering BOF was useful and insightful. BGP data analysis BOF was very
intersting. Would like to see more of the same.
Peering BOF=Debate is always an excellent feature as it forces people
to think (even the ones in the audience) and present ideas clearly.
Makes the audience go from "passive mode" to active/participating mode.
Please record & archive BOFs
Same old...
Security BOF overall was weak Peering BOF was too much of the
same old thing suggestion: If possible maybe a peering
coordinator could detail how they develop/enforce their peering
strategy. Could be presented by a neutral speaker to keep ID unknow.
Shim6 discussion was important and helpful
The BOFs that I could attend were informative and provided great
insight into how the community works with various topics such as IPv6
and BGP Data Analysis.
The IAB BOF was an excellent and long-overdue way to get Operator
input and guidance on IETF activities which Operators have
unfortunately all but abandonded. Such things should be a regular
feature of NANOG.
The IAB IPv6 multihoming BOF conflicted with the peering BOF.
This was a very bad decision as many of the people who are concerned
about IPv6 multihoming are the same people interested in the peering BOF
The IAB Multihoming BOF was very good.
The peering BOF needs more time set aside for people to make requests
for peering, the personals is a good idea but maybe needs a better
platform i.e maybe a bulletin board where you can post your info and
common meeting point.
These comments are on the SHIM6 BOF.
These were essential unthemed tracks-attendance was so good I couldn't
consider them BOGS
Tools BOF was useful
Very happy w/ the time change. Peering time to change itop a bit.
Security: Need a new seating arrangement and input on topic from
audience.
We could hae used another hour in peering.
Would have liked to attend both Peering and IAB IPv6 BOFs, but they
clashed.
BOF in afternoon meant no speakers in afternoon. Was this because lack of quality submissions? Or did this mean presentations were compressed so speakers unable to present matterial in designated time on agenda?
BOFs in the afternoon & free evenings worked very well. The slower pace of this NANOG allowed me to meet more people.
Breakfast monday with egg burito's was great!
BW capacity planning should be included. Ntwk performance talk should be included. Use realtime product comparison.
Can the screens for showing the slide sets be higher up next time - if the ceiling height allows? The bottoms of people's slides were obscured by other's heads. Having a community open mic is a worthwhile item, and thanks for putting the additional effort in, and for the extra transparency.
Cellular phone coverage in the facility was horrible. Many people could not call each other and received odd error messages when attempting to place calls. The terminal room was awesome. The people bittorrenting things on the NANOG network were annoying at times.
Enjoyed the meeting. I think it is time to move to two meetings a year. Better content for presentations and a whole lot easier on the budget.
Equinix went beyond expectations on the social events, excellent
Excellent speakers and topics, glad we had sodas at breakfast and morning breaks. Better breakfast, on-site lunch?
exploring small works-in-progress/lightning presos might be interesting
Find a method to associate new attendees w/regulars. Determine interests of attendees who pre-register and put them together at a mixer/BOF, etc.
Geoff Huston was great!
Good show!
Good to club talks into the research forum. Separation is important for attendees so they can chose to attend/skip if desired. V. good idea to ahve a separate women's T-shirt.
I liked the nanog meeting on Sunday night, lots of good suggestions. Hopefully some will be implemented. I like some of the ideas about helping people meet with others face to face.
I think people should speak a little bit slower considering that not everyone's motherlanguage is English. The speakers should speak English more fluent, I've had hard times in understanding IpV6 Workshop because of the speaker's unavailablity of speaking fluent English
I understand trying to integrate as many BOFs and tutorials possible during a typical NANOG meeting, however, I think that their scheduling should be closer reviewed. There were two that I wanted to attend, however they were scheduled for the same time. I personally don't have a preference on when the BOFs are, either late afternoon or evening as I like to attend the NANOG meetings to obtain as much great info as I can.
I want live script system. Someone speaks so fast. It will support me.
Let 1st timers introduce themselves - people huddle in groups with very little cross polination.
Liked the entertainment (movies) in the term room
Lobbycast.
Lunch should be provided - Box lunches okay
Main room, have center screen in front of podium to alleviate ping-pong effect from speaker to side screens and back.
Many sessions running late. Same speaker for 2 different topics? This is quite unusual.
NANOG should be expanded to allow more hallway chat time. NANOG should have more time for interesting talks to unfold. Try a NANOG debate like in the Peering BOF More What worked, What didn't work Have Community meeting every NANOG-Good discussions! How to determine Peering Partner (Richard Steenbergen talk) was Good
Never noticed the broadcast from the lobby. I think it was very well organized.
newer, more advanced/bleeding edge content
Nothing to add
NSP & EC BOF before Beer & Gear - EXCELLENT IDEA! Quality and variety of talks seems much improved - good mix among operational, research, and security content. Cheers to the program committee!
Overall another good NANOG.
Overall I thought it was quite good.
Peering Personals: excellent to break the ice in that tight knit group. Bill is doing an excellent job sheparding new comers. Shepard/Mentoring: New comers to NANOG could be matched w/volunteers in their domain of interest (security/ops) Ops!! Bring back the "O" in NANOG share daily concerns/issues/challenges facing operators and derive best practices
Research forum should not be the last session! Whole point is to get feedback from operators.
SCHEDULES! Good grief, if nothing else just say, we're running until 4 or 5pm on Tues so we can justify travel out on Wed morning, etc.
Seems like schedule caused BOF to shutdown too soon.
Set the "stop" time in advance so fold could make better flight decisions.
Some outlet strips in the BOF/tutorial room, at least under the first row of chairs for those of us taking notes to send back to the rest of the company.
The BOFs were great-could have been a bit longer. Is it possible to spread out the BOFs to avoid overlap?
The broadcast of the meeting in the lobby was nice if one had to take a phone call, etc.
The music at parties prevented socializing. We're not frat kids. A quieter environment would be nice. Mabye take comments & questions over IRC or IM too.
The wireless network was definitely better, but please continue trying to improve it. It's very frustrating to be at NANOG and have the ballroom wireless network so slow that you almost can't do anything. What happened to the wired connections (at least that was an alternative when the ballroom wireless network got really bad)? The Steering Committee feedback was one of the best NANOG discussions I've been in. That should be a regular (not necessarily every NANOG, but frequent) feature of NANOG.
The wireless was excellent as was IPv6 connectivity.
These are pretty well run down, as a rule. Some are better than others, of course, but much depends on sponsor.
Time for speakers
Trying to keep the schedule to a little closer to on time. It was good to see presentations about what folks are actually doing, testing or trying
Venue & online registration very well!
Wireless network (802.11 A&G) much better. Mains sockets in plenary hall difficult to find/use.
Wireless was still extremely flakey, EVDO was more useful for a significant portion of the time. These APs crash on a regular basis every NANOG, I still can't believe that a networking conference can't manage to do better.
Works well: proximity to stores/restaurants bar/lobby as a general oare for gathering (ie not like Vegas!) Improve: fixing date & location in advance
Would it be possible to have power outlets available during Sunday tutorials?
As was discussed in the Steering Committee BOF, there is a large part (around half) of NANOG attendees who do not go to NANOG for peering (and aren't representing or consulting with large carrier networks and exchange points). More work needs to be done to explore the interests and expertise of that group.
Bring Todd Underwood back to do a followup on the longer term fallout from the November 9th Level3 deeperings. kc claffy's IPv6 "show me the money" talk that she did with ARIN, but let her go all the way to the end...she just started getting to the interesting bits before being cut off.
Broadband Video Distribution
Consider joint NANOG & IETF.
Get Van to talk about anything :) It would be also interesting to try to get Sally Floyd.
Having someone come talk about nfdump/nfsen might be useful. Good tool, might be good to get more people exposed to it.
I'd like to see more academic research on BGP, and other protocols, and more speakers like Geoff Huston and Todd Underwood. Suggestion: A web page with pictures during the NANOG. People may submit their own.
IGP operational topics. More on IPv6 related operational topics.
IRR tutorial
Part two w/additional tests (churn, duration, trending, etc) for the BGP filtering session. Flesh out assumptions for validity upon review of rejected/dampened
Peering Presentation-Basic, Intro to Multihoming for the Enterprise and Content Provider Bill's Peering simulation game
Renasys Rocks More
Rob Thomas is always great!
Router vendor current capabilities to support large routing tables and forwarding router vendor future road map to support large routing & forwarding tables of IPv4 & IPv6
Speculate senarios for a follow on to BGP or other IPv6-Massive-RO Table-Expansion management.
State of VPLS.
Success stories for Internet Exchange Points in areas that are very hard to run Internet Exchange Points, such as Hawaii , etc.
The ideal IPNOC-tools, shifts, manpower, organization or "how to rate your IPNOC"
Tracks! Keep one on "future" trends/technology "Why are you here"? You need to understand the needs/benefits of attendees to properly design an agenda that leaves everyone satisfied. I would encourage a survey sent to the list.
Vendor problems/bugs. Maybe a BOF. How to implement IPv6 at av4 Tier / ISP natively
VOIP
Welcome reception should be at a place less noisy. Rock Cafe too loud, could not talk to anybody.
While the R&D stuff is nice, would like to see more presentations that do not hold back. Lets see some real data on what does and doesnt work and where specific vendors fail. I was glad Todd Underwood was as open as he was in his Cogent/Level(3) presentation. We should let presentors have a bit more room.
Would like a couple of security tech talks.
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.
NIC.PR - Puerto Rico, USA - Mehmet Akcin - mehmet@nic.pr