NANOG 36

Attendee Survey Form

February 12-15, 2006

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one)
Very useful (32)   Useful (73)   No opinion (5)   Not very useful (1)   Useless (0)

Is this your first time attending NANOG?    (36)  Yes    (73)  No

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare?
Better (29)   About the same (40)   Worse (5)   N/A (32)

• 3 days is too long. Ending on Tuesday Night would be welcome
• All of the presentations were interesting, informative, and entertaining.
• Awesome...
• Better presentations, but fewer. Less relevant to vendor.  Good presentations, but not relevant to vendors. I thought Duane Wessels slides were the easiest to read (black/dark background, white type)
• DNS info very interesting.    Netflow tools extremely interesting.    IPv6 debate very informative. Excellent moderator. Needed more input from IPv6 agnostics. Maybe NANOG needs to find some way to document the frustrations that operators are expressing, since the issues come up again and again and the IPv6 people seem to be very succesful at ignoring them.    OpenBGPD talk was fun and informative.    Cert-signed prefix distribution discussions were very interesting and there need to be more of them.    
• Excellent overall program.  Feed appropriate amounts of caffeine to the morning presenters.  Excellent IPv6 panel by Dan Golding - well run!  Good netflow tools - I want Flamingo now!  Paula Rhea left a lot to be desired.  Loved Josh Snowhorn's balls...  Lightning talks were a great addition.
• General sessions were good.  Good wide range of topics.  Good IPv6 subjects covered.
• Going to Wednesday is OK, but it seems wasteful to just have a couple of hours of talks.  Might as well throw in a couple more and really put me in the doghouse with my wife and kid.
• good groupings based on topics.  Monday panel disucssion was valuable.  Generally good quality speakers.  Voice of the customer was limited.
• Good, better
• I am most interested in tools-related presentations, so the Tuesday morning presentations were of the most interest to me.
• I didn't like this new schedule format; lets go back to old way  v6fix=great!
• I enjoyed lieghtening talks - some speakers should flesh out for June. Please bring back the IX panel.
• I found the v6fix talk on Wed morning particular interesting.  I also found value in the talk about network attacks using persistant forwarding loops.  I enjoyed the Katrina talk.
• I like the 3-day setup. Gives more time to do things on the weekend in the area as well as more time to socialize.     I think everyone agrees that there was a lack of content at this NANOG. However, this is due to the PC not being able to summon enough participation. I feel that perhaps the PC should be staffed with more individuals who are involved with technology (ie. very technical people). While I do like many of the members of the PC, I find that the only way to get good content is to have very technical clueful people to seek it out.
• I liked the discussions on IPv6.
• I really dislike the new agenda format and stretching things out to 3-4 days.  I think the tutorials are a great resource, but keeping them on Sunday PM would be better.    People's travel schedules are already stretched to the max.  Stretching NANOG out to 3-4 days is a bad idea.
• I think the Mon-Wed format works better.  It makes  the weekend travel less stressful, and allows for  more time meeting people and interacting in the  lobby; feels less like a race squeezing face time  in amongst the breaks only.    A good mix of topics.  I wish I hadn't gotten paged  out during Tuesday morning's tools talks.  :(
• I think the organization should be able to better define its missions, its problems and the steps to solve them.  NANOG should be more IETF oriented it should have enough power to set new directions within the IETF by influencing its work.
• I thought the "Searching for DNS Cache Poisoners—Lazy, Stupid, or Evil?", presented by Duane Wessels of Measurement Factory/CAIDA, was very informational and opened my eyes to some technical information concerning DNS services.  "NVisionIP and VisFlowConnect-IP: Two Tools for Visualizing NetFlows for Security" presented by Bill Yurcik of NCSA and "Flamingo: An Internet Traffic Exploration Tool" presented by Manish Karir of Merit were very good.  "OpenBGPD, a New Approach to BGP, and its Implementation at the DE-CIX" presented by Bernhard Kroenung of DE-CIX and Hennig Brauer of OpenBSD was good but could have been a lot better if the presentation was slowed down a bit.  It seems as if that presentation was rushed through to stay within the time constraint.
• It is quite interesting about security issues, for example, persistent forwarding loop, prefix hijacking.
• Less people, NOT ON VALENTINE!
• Lightning talks were mostly good to excellent, on average better than the regular schedule.
• Like the layout, access to power, ability to multitak while participating in useful discussions.
• Like the new format
• Mon- DNS Cache Poisoners - Best of the whole day  Tue - Flamingo, Prefix Hijacking and Open BGP
• More protocol implementation and lessons learned.
• Most of the talks were very useful!!
• Netfolw tool talks were good. None discussed platform SW ran on
• nice
• Nicely thematic sections
• NO MORE RANDY BUSH
• okay ...
• Overall quite interesting. No special comments though.
• Prefer this format - the use of m-t-w rather than the s-m-t format.    Would like to see video archives, and maybe other streaming formats.    For those of us watching remotely, it would be nice to have name-placards (readable) of the panel members.  Better lighting too, but beggars can't be chosers.    Sound was better than in times past.
• Pretty good content this time
• REally appreciated the info from "Clear & present Increase of AAAA Querying"! Also found netlow topics informative.
• Steve Gibbard = Good  Rand = Goo
• Steve's talk Monday was cool. Very nice to see geographical distribution.  All tools talks were specifically neat, maily as I am a tool maker.
• The general session at this NANOG were good. The do seem to focus more on specialized areas (IPv6, DNS, etc), and not so much in the future of where some of these major Tier 1 providers are going. While detailed routing protocol or infrastructure discussions are meant for somewhere else, some discussion would be good.
• The IPv6 board was interesting. The talk on prefix hijacking was good as well as the one on "persistent" forwarding loops. In the past I remember more content covered by the speakers and less tutorials during the general session.
• The IPv6 panel session was quite interesting as were the lighning talks (certainly something to repeat).
• The IPv6 panel was great
• The talks were generally interesting and useful.  I appreciate the strong DNS and tools focus.  
• These sessions were generally useful and informative
• They were all good. There was an overload on DNS. I think a good presentation is ruined by lack of ability to speak english. We had some folks who had great presos but couldn't speak english. I dont have a suggestion to help with that, but it distracts from the good stuff.
• topic groupings worked well. good operational focus with a mix of research.    in general, i didn't get much from the talks. the ipv6 topics were interesting but all in the mornings; so my 'peeps' back home in california were never awake to see the talks.
• Topics were a good mix.
• Tuesday about security
• very good
• very good
• Very good general session, most topics well chosen, relevant, and well presented.    There were a number of slides which did not seem to be compliant with the readability guidelines - with small font sizes, and heavily aliased images/diagrams.    When people export to .pdf, it's important to export as "press ready" rather than "web quality", to increase the dpi sufficiently in order to avoid aliasing.
• Very useful info, although a language barrier inhibited one of the most meaningful presos.

• A specific tutorial on setting up peering agreements, business cases, etc. would be very useful.
• BGP Trouble shooting was good
• Boring.
• Decent Security 101 tutorial by Roland Dobbins - good "BCP" overview, but now I have work to do.  
• did not attend
• did not attend
• Did not attend any tutorials, but I feel like I still learned something, who gets credit for that?
• Did not attend tutorials
• Didn't attend any. I'm too old.
• excellent phil smith BGP  & the L2TP ones also
• Fine.  Put them back on Sunday PM.
• good
• Good
• Good content.  Informative.
• I thought the tutorials on "Troubleshooting BGP", presented by Phillip Smith of Cisco, was extremely helpful and easy to follow.  Also,  the "L2VPN: Path to Convergence" tutorial, presented by Muhammad Waris Sagheer and Syed Nawaz of Cisco, was very informational and met my expectations of an "introductory level" tutorial which is what I was looking for.
• I was unfortunately unable to attend tutorials
• I'd like to see slightly more advanced tutorials.
• If we could ever get more than beginner tutorials that would be interesting, but I don't know how we would get content that would be interesting to more than a couple of folks
• ISP Sec tuned out better than I anticipated. Very quick/dense delivery (that's good!)
• ISP Security - Please, Show! Work ?? from real world. Examples of what we're preventing/thwarting - maybe hands-on! Blue Team vs red team?
• ISP Security 101 Primer was excellent.
• L2VPN
• L2VPN Tutorial:    Detailed coverage of technology area, demo aspect was good effort...could have improved by making the font more readable.
• L2VPN: Path To convergence was a very good talk. Slides were excellent and Speakers did a good job on communicating complex L2 VPN concept to the audience.    Waris is good speaker and did a good job.    Attendance was poor..was a bit surprised to see very low attendance on such an important topic.
• low-level ....
• Main thing with a Tutorial is to stage it in an appropriately sized room. A smaller, more intimate environment is good for teaching, as it encourages the audience to interact more with the tutor. Tutorials in a large ballroom aren't a good idea. Also, limiting the "class size" is generally considered a good idea.
• Man, Philip is vrey practiced at the trouble shooting BGP tutorial
• More tutorials
• n/a - I used tutorial time to have meetings with people.
• Please do not put hot topics in parallel - e.g BaP, security
• QoS Tutorial was the best. The presenters were well versed and expert in their areas. It was very crisp and clear and the material was well prepared.
• security & l2vpn tutorials were good.  Nice coverage of subjects and presented very well.
• Security tutorial (Roland) was excellent - good content, good presentation
• Some more advanced trouble shooting
• Surprised to have a VPN tutorial at NANOG, but it was good.
• The security tutorial is a win. It should be available every time for the first timers. Great job!
• The tool BoF should have been in main hall
• The tutorials I attended (ISP security primer, QoS overview, and L2VPN) were very sparsely attended, and seemed to be too introductory for I presume is the average attendee's level of knowledge and experience. Perhaps more advanced talks on the same topics would be more appropriate.
• The tutorials this time were relevant to what we would like to have seen. Between the BGP, L2VPN and security, they have provided valuable data, that can be shared with the rest of our organization.  
• They shouldn't be vendor specific or at least not presented by vendors.
• Troubleshooting BGP by Philip Smith, Cisco was meaningful to me. Thank you.
• Troubleshooting BGP session was excellent. Very good teacher, very clear organization and useful information.    L2VPN session was useful (listened to first half) but there's a lot of acronym soup and it can be difficult to keep all the pieces in mind during the discussions.
• Troubleshooting BGP tutorial: useful&interesting.
• Tutorials are good
• We should avoid scheduling advanced BOF's at the same time

• 1st time attender of the BOFs. The Peering BOF was great; the security BOF wasn't.
• BOFs were useful ... should be more in the future ...
• BOF's were very good. Glad to have them in the afternoon. The room layout for the Peering BOF was EXCELLENT!
• Brilliant
• Decent NSP-SEC BOF, but not a lot of meat.  Great peering BOF, but might want to find a way to raise the bar and/or distract those who shouldn't dream about peering.  Tools BOF was so energetic, thanks to the great Todd Underwood.  
• good
• Good BOFs, it would be good to consider other BOFs, maybe just on QoS, VOIP, just to get those together to meet face to face
• Good. We should identify a way to remove vendors from the BoF topic from hosting it. It's a conflict of Interest even if it is Bill Norton - but Bill did do a good job at being neutral unlike his company. :) Not just Bill. The NSP-SEC BoF has the same problem where vendors are dominating the discussions with their topics, not ours.  
• great
• I always fond the Peering BoF to be very helpful to meet people
• I attended the tools BOF, which I found very interesting because of the comments from the public. However, a very few number of people seemed to monopolize the floor with personal agendas, which might be mitigated by more active moderator involvement.
• I did not attend any BOFs
• I did not attend any BOFs.
• I have not attended any BoF
• I really liked the seating arrangement in Bill Norton's Peering BOF.  Much thanks to Betty! :)  This seating arrangement worked really well because the focus in this BOF were the people and not the slides.  It allowed everyone to see everyone else's faces & reactions, and it really facilited discussion.
• I would like to see more time spent for meet and greet in the peering BoF. Since everyone that attends wants to peer for th emost part.
• ISP Security BoF more participation
• IX BOF Bill Norton Ok
• Keep up the good work on the peering BOF
• Liked the tools BOF
• More BoF's
• More tools BOFs.
• NA... attended tutorials
• OK.  
• OpenBGPD rocks.  Flamingo... not too useful.
• Peering BOF - great as usual. Liked the format. Request peering BOF again and talking about neutrality.    Tools BOF - Todd rocks as a moderator. Great mix of talks and congrats on great attendance.
• Peering BoF format was much inproved. "In the Round" could use at least two more microphones. What I would recommend for future Peering BoFs is a table in the front of the room where peer leads seeking peering can leave a stack of business cards. Announce at start.
• Peering BOF needs another 1/2 hr
• Peering BoF ROCKED
• Peering BoF was a lot of fun. liked the format - very dynamic. Keep the peering BoF this engaged  Make the BoF twic as long and in two halves
• Peering BoF was interesting
• Peering BoF was lively and interesting - covered 5 or 6 topics without being superficial.
• Peering BOF was very good.  Excellent job by Bill Norton.  "In-the-round" seating worked very well.
• Peering BOF was weird. Found it -very- strange and unusual to hear people asking for "How much do you pay for transit, from whom and contract start date". Such questions require many folks in the room to violate NDA's.   I found the MED debate a bit odd. When the survey was given to find out how many people actually did send/recv MEDs, I seriously think people refused to raise their hands. Liked the bit about people forging BGP origins, there needs to be more "calling bullshit" in NANOG in my opinion. If ghetto stuff is going on, the behavior should be called out. You cant always rely on Vijay Gill to do this :)    BGP presentation was okay. While the architecture of OpenBGPD is nice, it was out of scope for the NANOG audience. The presentation should have been more on the implementation and capabilities of the package, rather than the internal architecture/function.
• Peering BOF: excellent! Great community feeling (with the "round-table" chair setup), good contents, very well-chaired by WBN.    Tools BOF: very good as well. I think that it's very useful to have an insight on new tools.
• Peering forum is the best part of NANOG
• The BOF's were good  Nice that they didn't overlap  First time at Peering bof - seemed a bit academic
• The peering BoF was very fun and lively.
• The peering debate was good this time around.  Patrick was John Kerry to Richard's Bush, but I think ras still wins the election.  nsp-sec bof was decent.  It was a good balance between short presentations and open discussion.
• The was the first peering BOF I attended. It was informative, interesting, fun, and useful. I'd like to see it take up an entire afternoon.
• There were one or two annoying people who were asking questions and acting as if they were the GOD of the Internet. Should be warned to be more cohesive, polite to others! And not try to take over the floor.
• They all were great.
• This is the first time I have attended NANOG where the BOFs were during the day. I am not 100% sure that I like it, as I remember the BOFs going way into the night. While people would be tired, the lack of a set ending time allowed for conversations to complete, instead of being cut short to ensure it fits within the specified time.
• Todd Underwood's tools BOF rocked.  He's a very  dynamic moderator, and keeps the room focused,  awake, and on topic.  Henning?  from OpenBGPD  was definitely right on the money!!  Would love  to hear his progress again in the future.  
• Tools BOF could have been better.  Flows visualization tool was the best part.  We need to cover tools that are more usefull than OpenBGPd and IRR.
• Tools BOF on Tuesday afternoon is really helpful.
• Tools BOF was informative: more info on Flamingo and OpenBGPd was useful and interesting.
• Tools BoF was particularly interesting and from audience reaction seemed to be very pertinent and useful. High interaction between speakers and audience - great.
• Tools BOF was very good, and well attended. The style of laying the chairs out at the peering BOF was clever - as it encouraged more interaction.
• Unfortunately I missed the peering BOF, however is was one of the things that was most interesting to attend.
• Very useful and energetic
• Very usefull, peering BOF

• Access to downtown tunnel system was nice.
• Bit of a "downtown wasteland" in the immediate area, but it wasn't too bad, as things were within walking distance or short cab rides.    The hotel itself was good. The staff were pleasant, and there was plenty of space. Decor was a little but tired, but it seemed clean.
• close
• Close to downtown easy to find
• close to home.
• Cold! Questionable food, dreadful service in the only restaurant, and the water tasted weird!
• Dallas is not a beutiful town - but hotel was okay.
• Did not like the location.
• Didn't manage to find fast food near it.  Hated the sunlight washing out the room - couldn't find anyone.  LOVED the selection of snacks at breaks - having sodas and coffee at every opportunity was fantastic.  
• Excellent
• Excellent choice!
• few power outlets in the bar. :)
• good cell coverage, short walks in-building, good in-room and on-site network access
• Good. Too bad the weather was bad. Downtown dallas does not leave much for people to do. Most places closed early and it was pretty much a ghost town after 5PM.
• Great hotel venue.
• Having the large room for the beer and gear was  definitely key.  In previous meetings (LA), having  to sit outside the tent and get rained on to much  on the food really sucked.  I think this was the  best venue for it thus far, it allowed plenty of  room to talk without feeling elbowed and crowded   around each table or vendor.
• Hotel and conference rooms were fine.  Limited dining within walking distance of hotel.
• hotel rooms were expensive.   Besides that, everything was very good.
• Hotel venue was excellent.
• Hotel was a good choice.  Lots of space, good layout, plenty of areas for breakout discussions. Great wireless coverage!
• Hotel was fine
• Hotel was good. There wasn't a lot of late night stuff around and the hotel bar kept kicking us out early.    The hotel bar was bad. They kept serving people that were clearly intoxicated and there was almost a brawl at one point with one of the pugilists stumbling around looking for a fight.
• hotel was very nice, a little pricey for the food
• I have a lot of complaints about the hotel. I ended up checking out on Tuesday and going to a different hotel. The conference part was fine. The hotel service was unacceptable as a guest.    --   sunday:  - i arrived at 3. didn't get my room until 5:15. missed the community meeting  - i've heard of expensive hotel bars, but an $11 glass of wine?  - got shown to the wrong room (There's another chen at the hotel.) Fortunately, the bellman was _with_ me with my bags, so I didn't have to wait there and try to search for my bags. He did a great job making light of the situation and cheering me up.  - asked concierge for dinner recommendations and he gave us names and locations of 2 restaurants that were both closed  - by the time we were back at the hotel, the restaurant was closed and the restaurant host didn't bother to tell us that it was closed until we'd been there waiting for 10 minutes    monday:  - susan was here all day hanging out and working from the room.  - at 9:30am, someone from the hotel knocked on the door and asked if we had called. She said no.  - at 10am, she noticed that it was warm in the room; looked at the thermometer and it was off. No AC. At this point, it was hot in the room. She called the front desk to send someone up to fix it.   - at lunchtime, I went up to the room and it was oppressively hot. She had not yet heard from anyone at the hotel other than the housekeeping making up the room.    (by the way, housekeeping tried throwing away a bunch of things such as a box of pins. Susan had to empty her trash; and then she didn't end up taking any trash. Housekeeping also didn't refresh the bathroom soap/shampoo, etc.)    - We had an appointment at 1pm; so went and talked to the front desk in person. Told them that the room thermometer was broken; and that we'd be back at 4pm and expected it to be fixed else we'd check out late.    - When we got back at 4:30pm - it was fixed    - the center elevator in the north tower was having issues. the doors would not shut (every floor, the doors would shut, open, shut, open, shut, go.) I went to the front desk asking them to fix it.    tuesday:  --  - in the morning, there was a checkout slip under the door. I have a copy of my original reservation that was through Wednesday the 15th. So, someone changed my reservation without my knowledge. It wasn't me, it wasn't Susan. (Silly cheerleaders? Front desk getting tired of me yelling at them? I later asked the front desk to tell me who changed the reservation and they claimed that they did not have the log.)    - at 730am, I went downstairs to get some medicine at the gift shop. The center elevator dropped abruptly from floor 17 to 16, stopped. I hit the alarm button for about 15 seconds; and then it moved to floor 16 and opened. I got off.    - Susan left at 8am. I noticed at 9 that the AC was broken again. I happened to see a facilities person in the hallway and he came in to fix the AC.     I was late to the conference proceedings.    - I checked out. Couldn't deal anymore. Very inconvenient to have to use a different hotel; but glad that I got out before I really yelled at someone.  I spoke to the front desk manager; frankly, he was pretty condescending and very useless.
• I like all
• I live near Dallas, so I didn't have to leave town. :)
• I think Hotel was a real disappointment in terms of   1. Price/Performnace   2. Food  3. Quality of support,  4. location.  5. Lack of wireless connectivity in Hotel rooms and interestingly paying for internet conncetions. That was a surprise.     Exorbitant charges for everything including a bottle of water..
• I thought the hotel was very nice.  I liked the New York Times instead of the usual USA Today.  The TV reception was crappy and the Internet costs money unless you sign up for their marketing program, which is kind of lame.  However, the exercise room was nice.  Food was decent.  Bartender I think was a bit of a newbie.  I asked for a screwdriver and she asked me if I wanted rum or vodka.  Hmm... kinda scary.
• It's OK.
• Liked it, no major concerns!
• Location was good because of walking distance to West End restaurants.
• Loved the free Internet in the rooms!  It was nice that getting a hotel club account for once resulted in immediate returns.  Good walking distance to restaurants.
• N/A
• Need more close food places   liked the feel of this hotel  reasonable price
• Nice hotel.
• nice location
• No indoor pool/spa.
• Not like: "non smoking room" reeked of smoke :(
• nothing..
• ok
• Other venues have been better with resturant/entertainment being easier to find etc.
• Parking is expensive for those driving in each day.
• Perfect hotel choice
• rooms are nice, restaurants are a bit far. nothing close
• Rude valets.
• spacious
• The hotel in itself is fine, but the location is not the best. If lunch is on our own, we probably need to have more choice of restaurants close to the hotel.
• The hotel is good. The food was very good. The only problem is that the hotel seems to be foar away from other places. e.g. malls
• The hotel room was very noisy. I could hear the elevator all night and I had the next room from elevator. There was almost nothing to do in the area of the hotel - no stores, no bookstores - pretty barren isolated location.
• The hotel venue seemed to work really well. I was suprised, being in Dallas (and having come here in the past) and there was enough to do. The hotel was convienient to the airport, and not hard to get to.
• The hotel was very nice and spacious.  I enjoyed it.
• The hotel was very nice considering the expensive bar and restaurant.
• The water smelled foul. I did like the additional breakout seating. This allowed more private conversations.
• The water was BAD! Don't drink the WATER
• too big
• Very nice hotel, Dallas wasn't as bad as expected.
• water smelled bad

• 3 days is too long
• A civil date? :)
• Amazingly the best part were the lightening talks, IMHO
• Dedicated rooms/sessions on a casual basis where you could have experts in security/routing etc. and have whiteboard sessions with various individuals. E.g. I may have a question on routing architecture, topology and want to discuss on the whiteboard.
• Despite the gripes I've heard from some of the more vocal folks, I really liked the new format.  I do have a suggestion for improvement that may help address some of the concerns.    The primary gripe was that there were too many days.  I can't think of much to address that right now.    A complaint was that the tutorials for beginner topics were taking place after the General Session talks have started.  I think having tutorials in the afternoons actually provided personal networking time for those who need that time without having to miss quite as much General Session time.    I suggest moving the tutorials for beginner topics  back to Sunday because beginners/newbies will be around Sunday anyway.  However, keep the Mon & Tue tutorial times for more advanced topics.  That way, regular attendees might find better value in having to stay extra days, and perhaps at the same time can still find networking time outside of General Session time.    Now, if only I have some ideas for advanced topics. ;)
• DO NOT DO NANOG ON VALENTINE'S DAY!!!  Just don't.  I don't give a crap if the hotel was booked the following week - that is bloody stupid.  Might as well hold it over Christmas.  Good program - seems like it's improving well.  Some more BCP stuff for evolving ISPs would be good.
• everything ok
• everything worked well except the quiche for breakfast...quiche, really?
• Expect much about ... Internet goes to lifeline.
• From a sponsor's point of view, we much prefer the Monday Beer 'N Gear time.  Tuesday eve (even if not on Valentine's Day) in a three-day event is likely to have lower attendance with many choosing to go home that afternoon instead of spending an extra night.
• Get keynote speaker
• Having the tutorials on Sun aft seems more "efficient," in that it can allow for more sessions on weekdays. OTOH, if there aren't enough session for the weekdays, then having the tutorials on Mon/Tue aft makes sense.
• Hotel venue was good.  Very cool to be able to  use wireless in the hotel rooms after hours.  The  big room for beer and gear was good.  I like the  more relaxed time scheduling.  I just wish I'd  had more time (not your fault, work issues).
• I believe that the Sunday registration and reception is an excellent idea.  Being that this was my first NANOG, I felt it extremely smooth in that right after I got off an airplane I didn't have to go and sit in a 3 hour tutorial.  It is important to socialize with other NANOGers that day, especially for new NANOGers.
• I don't like Dallas very much, but that's just me... :-)
• I liked the peering BoF on Tuesday.
• I think the NANOG went off very well.  I met and talked to lots of people and had a great time.  Thank you for limiting and toning down the music at the party, but I think there can still stand to be even less music.  
• I thought the two afternoons of tutorials didn't quite work.  Too much free time. One suggestion might be to have two days only, wiht talks until 2pm, then tutorials/BoFs after that. Another possibility is to have tutorials/BoFs on morning of 3rd day. I thought all talks were good this time, though I was not interested in some of them.
• I would like to see the Sunday - Monday - Tuesday NANOG return. It seemed easier for us to obtain approval to come when it was only 2 work days instead of 3. Also, as previously mentioned, BOFs (although longer) seemed to be useful in the evening.
• If we are going to bother flying out, might as well make it a three day event. So schedule change works.
• Keep the peering debates.  Have network neutrality debate at the Peering BoF
• Keep working on the PC stuff, looking good, more open-ness at the community meeting, SC is doing good, and I like we are getting the focus off people and onto process. I like that Randy told us minutes were up and I'd like to see minutes for the PC too. There's not a lot of reason to keep that process veiled. Openness is good and we all like it.
• Lightning talks were good  Better to have optional (Sunday) tutorials
• Lunch accomodation could be improved
• Maybe 1 or 2 longer talks  longer time for panels, short preso, questions from the moderator and questions from attendies. more time for questions on panels.
• More and Different Vendor sponsorship. Even if the community has to entice them to come. Seeing the same products over and over doesn't give good hallway talk.
• MORE FREE CANDY BARS
• More lightning talks.  More discussions like the IPv6 talk.
• more social events ...
• more topics
• More vendor neutral discussions.  Too much Cisco specific examples.
• New format was much better!
• Now that there's no Terminal Room, there needs to be enough power outlets provided in the open seating/hallway areas to plug in and charge up your laptop.    The new schedule gave more time to arrange meetings with your colleagues that were more meaningful - being less rushed. It also gave valuable time to keep up with the day job, because the world doesn't stop just because we're at NANOG. Many of us are still expected or even required to try and keep up as though we're in the office.    The free evenings were great, and the organised social seemed well recieved by all who attended. It was good to get everyone out and mixing socially, rather than hanging out in the same old groups.
• Please a better accessable city
• PLEASE PLEASE go back to tutorials on a separate day. It is an onus for the regulars to have to spend an extra day. If people don't want BoFs in the evenings, cut down the general presentations and schedule a BoF, say, Monday afternoon. It doesn't hurt to have fewer talks. It might even push up quality of talks.
• power strips, big tables
• Public laptops are fine but maybe in a room  The "open seating" rooms were nice & useful. Tools BoF had a small room - it was overwhelmed.
• Setup a website where people can coordinate travel from airport to the venue? DFW -> Hotel was ~$40 by cab. Way too excessive. Public transportation options to/from the airport were limited.  Randy still needs to stop hogging the mic and talking out of turn. I dont care who you are or how long youve been around, it is rude and no one should be permitted to constantly get away with it.
• Since the tutorials seem to be not as popular as the general sessions, putting them together on one day either before or after the rest of the agenda seems to be a more efficient use of peoples' time.
• Some of the graphics on the largescreens were faint and hard to read.  Swapping of presenters laptops was a distraction.  Consider a single laptop with all presentations.  Stage configuraiton did not allow speakers to move around.  Consider tables only for the panel and wireless microphones for all non-panel presentations.
• the date... hello?    I liked going into Wed -- definitely a good idea
• The lightning talks worked well. It would be useful to add some time for questions for the lightning talks presenters.
• The newcomers presentation was a good idea to help newcomers feel comfortable. I liked the informal presentation by Feldman, and Betty.    The general session topics chosen were kind of incoherent and did not succeed much, in my opinion,  in bridging the needs and addressing the issues facing (a) ISPs, (2) Network Operators (3)the vendors and (4) Research community.     We saw glipses of frustration coming out from some community in the IPv6 discussion forum. But, it would be better to host 4 such forums, one from each community outling their expectations, and disappointments from others. That way Nanog will play better constructive roles in reaching out all the communities. As a newcomer (from Vendor Side) to Nanog, I sincerely wanted to know what others think and communicate their expectations and concerns internally to our company.    
• The schedule worked well and was much more relaxing which allowed for more hall way conversations than the more compressed schedule used previously.
• The social on Monday was fantastic! Moving beer & gear to Tuesday allowed more folks to have "caught-up" in the halls and this gave time back to the gear review. The larger space gave elbow room. Los Angeles was claustrophobic.
• To put out agenda & schedules early.  I can't plan to go to the NANOG from Japan.
• Wifi was good.
• Wireless net worked great. Hotel layout was great, though
• Wireless was good for me, keep up the good work.
• worked well: new format takes a bit to get used to, but is definitely an improvement. The only issue is that I only get 5 conference days per year; so "old" NANOG format worked better that I could be back at work by Wednesday. I liked having Tuesday night free to socialize or meet up with different people.     Yahoo! did a bang up job with hosting and all the presents (tshirts and jacket!) were great! Congrats to the hosts. Datacenter tour, or is that the secret sauce?    --  Someone came up with a 'message board' - being able to put up a name card saying "I'm looking for so-and-so" ...    --  
• Would like to see more video coverage.  I, personally, would be willing to pay for better access - I can't get away from my responsibilities and it prevents my attendance.

• Continue the IPv6 topics.
• DTN  Security
• Dual core worth it or not  Juniper/Cisco vs New equipment like Foundry Force10
• Geoff Houston - Anything  Peter Lothberg - Anything
• How about an overview of the current ARIN and global policy proposals being worked on, with an analysis of how they might impact network operations?  Einar@ARIN does a great job if it at ARIN meetings. :)    Other topics: WSIS / WGIG activities, data privacy (maybe EFF activities?), Google's agreement with China to filter, update on SIP development, update on hot IETF topics, lessons learned, how to overcome obstacles to giving NANOG presos (short talk, hopefully :), comparisons of "in theory" and "in practice" with regards to new/recently-implemented network technologies
• How are colo providers (Equinix, PAIX, etc.) dealing with the issues of power and future business? "Aloud" commentary (a couple of times) during the peering BOF was "Give me power!" or "How are you going to get new customers if you have no power!"    --  Public speaking coaches and practice talk time. ;)  Tech writers to look over slides and make corrections / presentation assistance.    --  Topics --> net-grrls and female recruiting
• HSRP, VRRP, CARP  Local concerns for other regions... Asia, Africa, etc.
• I think that it is extremely important for presenters to speak up in a clear, understandable voice.  There were times at NANOG when I could not hear the presenter(s) or their English was not understandable.  The slides were great but understandability is much better.
• I think the sponsors are up'ing the ante on the Monday event, which would seem to make it harder and harder for the next sponsor to not look cheap.  All that is very much appreciated, but as far as I'm concerned I don't need all the expense if some future sponsor wants to cut costs to justify hosting one.
• I would like to learn more about Microsoft's impact on the network for Vista upgrades. Capacity planning will be key.. FEMA - they should discuss how network operators can volunteer. Sean Donelan said it "get to know your gov.".
• If there's a dearth of speakers, it might be interesting to have a submission page of people who want things to be addressed but don't have the expertise or presentation skills to give a talk.  Then, people who want to speak but aren't sure what the audience wnats to hear can gear their talks to what people want to hear.  
• I'm hoping to have a BGP analysis toolset ready  by October that will do BGP AS-path plus netflow  data analysis to identify optimal peering partners  for networks.  Won't be ready in time for presenting  at the Spring NANOG, though.
• IPv6 deploymnet best practices  Last mile technologies  ISP/Enterprise edge security  Peering  "Lessons learned" on various topics  Foreign ISP Technology
• ISP Essential tools - high level overview of most common tools people use.  Providers network topology - Architecture (Network) Routing architecture lessons learned  Topics on VOIP SPS    Not sure if this would fall out of NANOG's scope but it would be good to have a link, email alias where you can post/search for jobs within the ISP community.
• Less IPv6, please.  Better speakers (ie. better english).   Better slides (no more yellow lines/text on white backgrounds).  No more speakers that call a /16 a "class b".  More talks regarding on what people are doing, even if the presentation was "sanitized". Would like to see more analysis on things people are doing, good or bad.  Need to have talks that really lay out the options when it comes to features/capabilities per vendor. It is not vendor bashing to come out and say "ok, so this box can do X, this one can do Y...etc". Many NANOG attendees do not have labs and serving up results (ie. benchmarks) could be done without violating NDAs.  
• Maybe more about commercial issue, political- internet problem etc
• More focus on emerging technology, global issues,
• More specific case studies in management and tools.
• Net Nuetrality  Global Route system scalability (BGP scaling)    
• No quiche! More case studies by real operators.
• Since most of the people who attend NANOG have some importance within their company, it would be useful to get some input on disaster recovery. Not what was done for Katrina, but rather what can be done in the future. Contacts of people who might be able to assist, potential services (not a sales pitch) and so on. I would be willing to expore this topic further, and potentially speak if it had enough interest.
• Something on trouble ticketing and reliability analysis.  IPv6 deployment issues and best practices
• Sunday was better for tutorials but no BoF overlap and more time to have hallway discussion is good.
• Survey of device configuration management requirements, strategies, processes, and tools.
• Take telecom off the retarded step-child list and allow submissions on it. It comes up a lot i.e. SS7 /VOIP etc and it's relevant to the infrastructure and oeprations.
• There should be "best of" sessions... either live speakers or video tape.
• Tools info was very useful. More info on netflow-based tools is always welcome. Info on netflow collection issues and netflow generation issues (probes, packet mirrors) could be useful.    People keep saying that "IPv6 just works." But no one is talking about the entire network management and monitoring infrastructure impacted by IPv6. How well are DNS and DHCP servers working and how does the net operator collect v6 info in netflow? How about firewalls and their ability to support v6? What about security ACLs and edge filtering (does Cisco's uRPF work with IPv6?), etc. There's a lot more to networking than just hooking things up, and being told that "IPv6 just works" ignores the whole network management and monitoring task set which is very frustrating.
• Vijay Gill!  Love his talks.  More 'lessons learned' talks.
• Yeah, PDL presenting about "Pet Projects" - like the DNS Infrastructure guy 4, What is the conclusion? call to action?  Some presos too unfocused, can't/don't see what the point is?

• Google, Inc  Veronica Naughton  corporate events  veronican@google.com  650-253-6887    Feb 2007?   Tahoe? Mt View? Half Moon Bay?
• Having been to Internet2 Joint Techs last week and then NANOG this week I would suggest that there is plenty of overlap of interest that would make a meeting schedule with an overlapping day an attractive idea both from a tutorial perspective and a session point of view.
• Microsoft, Google, Limelight, etc. With net neutrality concerns on the rise it would be good for other large content players to raise their visibility.
• ummm....not for a few more years ;)
• Verizon  AT&T  STARTAP
• We already did. Maybe we will again. If I get asked, I will recommend.
• We've had Yahoo. How about Google? ;)