^ Top

NANOG26 Survey Results

Eugene, Oregon 

Attendee Survey Results

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one) 
Very useful  60   Useful  116   No opinion  2   Not very useful  6   Useless  0 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better  45   About the same  50  Worse  9  N/A  77 

How did you like the program (the Monday-Tuesday General Session)? 

The choice of topics were: 
Well Chosen   1 (44) 2 (110) 3 (25) 4 (4) 5 Poorly Chosen (0

The level of detail in the presentations were: 
Excellent  1 (26) 2 (9) 3 (37)  4 (10)  5 Unsatisfactory (0

The speakers were: 
Excellent  1 (29)  2 (91)  3 (50)  4 (6) 5 Unsatisfactory (0

How did you like the tutorials? 

The choice of topic were: 
Well Chosen 1 (54) 2 (62) 3 (24) 4 (2) 5 Poorly Chosen (0

The level of detail in the presentations were: 
Excellent 1 (34) 2 (67) 3 (33) 4 (4) 5 Unsatisfactory (2)  

The speakers were: 
Excellent 1 (46)  2 (60) 3 (30) 4 (2) 5 Unsatisfactory  (3

How did you like the BOFs? 

The choice of topic were: 
Well Chosen 1 (45) 2 (43) 3 (18) 4 (3) 5 Poorly Chosen (1

The level of detail in the presentations were: 
Excellent 1 (19) 2 (51) 3 (25) 4 (4) 5 Unsatisfactory  (1

The speakers were: 
Excellent 1 (25)   2 (53) 3 (19) 4 (6) 5 Unsatisfactory  (2

Is this your first time attending NANOG?


Yes  (83) No  (104)


Would you have attended this NANOG if it had not been held in conjunction with ARIN?

Yes  (166) No  (19)


Are you also attending the ARIN meeting?

Yes  (61) No  (122)


If so, would you have attended the ARIN meeting if it had not been held in conjunction with NANOG?

Yes  (24) No  (57) NA  (47)


Should NANOG and ARIN continue to meet back-to-back? (choose one)

Strongly Agree  (45)   Agree  (64)  Don't Care  (67)   Disagree  (3)


Should future NANOG meetings be held back-to-back with other organizations?

Strongly Agree (18)   Agree (57)   Don't Care  (87)   Disagree  (8)

If so, which organizations?


What worked well and what should be improved for the next NANOG?


Do you have suggestions for future NANOG presentations? (Topics and/or speakers)


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.

Roffe Hitech IOP in Congo http://www.jobantech.cd Contact Didier R. Kasole 

Microsoft Harry Matthaus (?) 425-706-9802 Please contact me to discuss feasibility    


"does it make sense to hold NANOG in Japan?  if so, we might be interested :-)"    

What worked and what did not?

Would like to have more diversed panels for the various discussion topics.  It seems the panels mostly agreed with each other and not much discussion. 

work on measurements shold be encouraged in particular their use and impact on operations 

Wireless throughout the building :) The topics were nicely diverse this time. 'Vendor Feedback' should be everytime by  different speakers. 

Wireless network and facilities for the conference were excellent. 

wireless cards are awesome! 

WaveLAN=good Terminal room PCs = slow 

Video is excellent. Presentations online ahead of time is excellent. WLAN support/coverage excellent. 

UO football made Saturday arrival impossible! 

Tutorial was very helpful. 

The video broadcast is worling well.  I have quite a few friends watching from overseas.  The wireless is also working well.  I really like Eugene as a venue. 

The tutorials went well. Need more different tutorials. There are no multiple tracks. So we do not have selection. Forced to attend what ever the presentation. (monday/tuesday). Therefore it is good to have some multiple tracks 

The tutorial I saw was great.   

The time management was excellent. Considering the large number of attendees the meeting was managed excellently. 

The program and facilities worked well as usual. I have nothing but positive things to say about all aspects of this meeting. Keep up the good work. 

Someone needs to police wireless against rogue access points. 

shutdown  WiLAN during presentation in the conference room. nobody listen to the presentation everybody is connected to Internet and dont care about the sujet 

should have more networking functions 

provide restaurant list for lunches. 

Power for laptops and conference at remote location was great! Keep this going in a university environment 

Please hold NANOG at hotels that have room for the conference attendees. Having a very large portion of people unable to stay at the main hotel is unacceptable. 

Overall it was a very good meeting.  Will attend next time 

Overall great - thanks! 


Network was great! It would be nice if there was someway for new attendees could be introduced to people. 

More vendor (other than Cisco) presentations 

More tutorials 

More sessions for less informed ISP 

More practical solutions.  Move this from BOF to general session. Reports from IP exchanges. More reports on IPv6 deployment BOF should possibly be more of discussion on problems that may exist - a sway to let vendors know. 

More panel discussions. 

Might have attended arin - not sure. Not sure yet if nanog and arin should meet together. 

Liked Beer and Gear.  Very useful to see vendors. 

Less Tier-1 marketing talks 

If there is another MPLS talk the people reviewing the information given by the speakers should take better care to verify the information.  Also people might suggest that incredibly detailed presentations not be given at the very end of the day.  Slides should also be better organized so that they are not a jumble of words.   Better formatting is suggested. 

I liked having soft drinks all day.  I don't have anything negative to say. 

Hotel capacity and reservation service should be improved! Announcement of date and location of next meeting(s) at least 6 months in advance. 

Great networking! Great program! Great location! 

Good to heard things from the operation prespective. What about their point of views on new technologies? 

Good connectivity. Hotel is fine. Meeting rooms are fine. 

Eugene was great! 

Don't ask for surveys before all the talks are given.  Else later talks don't get feedback. 

Connectivity in the hotel rooms would be appreciated. Ecellent beer choices - thanks for coming to the northwest

certainly appreciated the good network connectivity.  wireless is a great thing! it is great to have wireless throughout the hotel... 

blokc-of-related talks (like block of ipv6) is GOOD. 

Better preparation by presenters.  It seems that most of the presenters were not ready to present their material until the last minute. 

better breakfast ;-) 

Bad t-shirt design.  Stop using black!  Back logo on back. 

A five-minute interval etween speakers to allow us to stand up and move our legs would be good. 

A better location with more acccomodations would be recommended for future nanog conferences. 

"You guys kept the schedule pretty damn tight, which was nice to see...Overall, I found NANOG to be quite informative and interesting." 

"There were a good number of empty chairs, so it would have been nice to trade some of the chairs for additional aisles. " 

"the wireless connectivity at this nanog worked pretty well comapried to pervious nanogs.  nanog should be held at a hotel that could house all attendies.  at this nanog, people we're spread over 6 different hotels." 

"The room for the general sessions seemed a bit cramped, although there was enough space for everyone." 

"The food was good, thanks for non sugar breakfast good wireless and power; thanks. UO did great.  I've done a conference myself and it is a lot of work..." 

"The choice of venue was questionable, as the hotel could not accomodate the conference attendees, regardless of other activities going on in the area at the time.  The main meeting room was too small, and the area where the Beer 'n' Gear was held was extremely cramped." 

"The Beer and Gear was VERY crowed this time relative to my last attendance in Oakland, or even Arizona.  Otherwise things were well done." 

"Smaller forums for presentations split up into different rooms.  More subject! I would really like to see talks aimed at real-world network management.  Traffic engineering, capacity planning, passive vs. active monitoring, etc." 

"Slides, ease of access great Panels don't quite come together - minitalks OK but not as good as with strong moderator." 

"Please encourage questions and discussions instead of forcing brief rushed presentations with moderator saying ""no questions we're late"" or ""lunch or questions""?" 

"Maybe a little broader range of topics. Not sure what at this point, but again it all seemed to be related to network monitoring and IPv6. Also, BOFs might be more productive (maybe less) if the free beer is consumed after the BOFs." 

"loved the wireless!  The panel discussions weren't - they were just loosly coupled presentations.  Either the topics were boring, or presented in a way that just made people not care to comment.  Paul Vixie, while knowledgable, needs to attend toastmasters:) " 

"loved the wireless!  The panel discussions weren't - they were just loosly coupled presentations.  Either the topics were boring, or presented in a way that just made people not care to comment.  Paul Vixie, while knowledgable, needs to attend toastmasters:) " 

"it would have been more interesting to have viewpoints from the mpls club, especially in the panel discussions.  it is unfortunate that that club does not feel comfortable (and is in fact defensive) of whatever they say at the NANOG. the fact that mpls 2002 was held at the same time did not help either." 

"It would be nice if there were instructions on the ""network"" instructions page for getting on the IRC channel as well.  I realize ""#nanog"" is not an official part of NANOG, but it's definitely a part of the culture at the conference." 

"If possible, more tables. People with laptops seem to be over 90% of the attendees, still nice to have a table to put it on." 

"I liked the chairs in center/tables on side layout.  There weren't quite enough table seats and they were too tightly packed - I suggest either: 1. Adding an extra ~12-inch between rows of tables 2. or, using smaller (2-4 seat) tables with narrow aisles in between to allow better access to seats in the middle of the row. " 

"Hotel selection was awful.  Wireless should be available in room or IP enabled rooms. Hotel should be chosen with needs of group in mind, not just standard hotel.  Too small for Beer & Gear/food service" 

"Great - wireless net, snacks Impossible - more table space in presentation rooms" 

"good: wireless network/access, hospitality stuff was great, beer and gear food/band stuff was awesome... thank you for your efforts." 

"Good:  programs are on time. Bad:  1. terminal room not that good, also no support there. 2.  No paper or handout for taking notes. " 

"Find ways to 'extract' more involvement in terms of questions - some presentations solicited a lot of discussion, others not so much.  Maybe this is an educational issue where people do not feel involved enough in the discussion topic in their day-to-day job, but want to take a more proactive approach.  Review (brief!) of last meeting's central themes - actions taken place as a result of discussion brought up." 

"Connectivity excellent, food good, location primo.  Would have used lobby tables on Tuesday if they had been there as they were on Monday am." 

"BOFs were my favorite part and the open-source tool discussion.  Maybe more on network config tactics such as blackholing src/dst DDoS,  best practices, etc.  Give speakers more time for questions and additional detail (many felt rushed)" 

"Bigger hotel, or more rooms.  I ended up staying at the Doubletree because the hotel was out of rooms a month ago :( (of course I was doubly irritated that friends of mine who hadn't reserved any room were able to walk in and get rooms.) Overall the flow went well - I think you're getting the hang of how to run them smoothyly! PS - varied music is good! :)" 

"Beer-n-Gear area was a bit congested this time.  Hotel wasn't big enough to hold all attendees was another moan that I heard. I did have a room in the hotel, and it was a decent room.  Connectivity was great - some of the best we have had recently. Reliable and fast. Shame UofO can't design the network for every meeting :-).  Good local info web pages.  Hotel wasn't too geek-friendly from the PoV of expensive local phone call charging compared to other places, but the wireless being up in some areas from Saturday made up for that." 

"Audio quality varies widely.  Speakers don't use mikes well, handheld audience mike use, where available, was still bad.  Having the food stay around after breakfast and breaks is great this time! Have a bit more space between tables in main hall Have a hotel with free ethernet in rooms.  Some are on the brinK of doing it - PUSH."

"As always logistics worked well (except for the lunch overflow of restaurants). A a 3 time attendee, I feel I can comment about another issue. There is a feeling that NANOG is a very close and well connected group. That's great. However, it means that outsider who wish to enter the close cycle find it difficult. Maybe something could be done in this matter, I don't have a good idea. I will think of something." 

"All worked well, I enjoyed it." 

"Agenda should clearly indicate whether or not a meal is being provided.  While I knew from previous experience that lunch is not provided, my travel expense people will question the fact that the agenda lists lunch." 

"802.11 was nice. Hotel was pretty meager (only poor dialup in room) Agenda management was better than previous meetings (mostly on time, etc.)" 

Tutorial Comments

Worth getting here early.  My only complaint was that I couldn't attend both of the first sessions.    

Was hoping to get more exposure to tools other agencies were using (software) in addition to techniques. 

Thomas Telkamp's presentation was particularly useful 

They were good. 

Sunday afternoon BGP tutorial was excellent. 

Stephen Stuarts Toolmaker stuff was wonderful to see. 

Stephen Stuart tutorial and BOF - decent forum but discussion tended towards Rancid.  Didn't care to discuss Rancid too much. 

Repeat IPv6 basics please (Tony Hain) Phil Smith outstanding 

Philip Smith's BGP troubleshooting tutorial was very good. 

Only went to evening IPv6 basics 

once again security/IPv6 very timely 

Most tutorials were not relevant to my job. 

More IPv6. 

ISP security was really helpful and relevant IPv6 summary by Tony Hain was excellent; very motivational and authoritative. 

ISP security 

IPv6 tutorial was particularly good. 

Interesting topics.  I wish I could attend all of them! 

I thought that Tony Hain spent to much time  justifying IPv6. He came across as having a political agenda - ie: selling IPv6. I would prefer more technical details.   The BGP troubleshooting was very good. I would though recommend he talk about BGP as used in larger ISPs. He never mentioned how to handle a DDOS attack. 

I thought that both the Security and Toolmakers tutorial would have more value for me if they had more detail. 

I only saw the IPv6 tutorial 

I enjoyed the tutorials that were more two way so others could ask questions.  

Didn't go to any 

didn't attend due to time constraints 

Didn't attend 

didn't attend 

Did not participate in the tutorials. 

did not attend any tutorial; was not here on sunday. 

BGP troubleshooting excellent tutorial.  Specific examples and explanations provided excellent information base to work from. 

BGP Intro is very good for beginners. 

BGP - excellent. Security - great. 

Barry is God! 

"The tutorials were way too basic, please provide more detail." 

"The topics were good, and the sessions lengths were appropriate. Longer sessions didn't seem to work as well at previous meetings. Although (and I am guilty of this), the sessions seemed like longer main track talks rather than instructional tutorials." 

"Presentations were good, selection was good." 

"Network management with free tools: little content, badly prepared, learned nothing." 

"Network management with free tools:  little content, badly prepared." 

"Liked Philip's BGP Troubleshooting tutorial. He's always great. I know he was incisive because I thought ""Oh yeah"" to everything he said." 

"IPV6, excellent!  Need more of this - the more exposure we have, the more comfortable we'll feel about deploying it. :) Now only if Dave Meyer would do a  ""how to run a multicast backbone' session. :)" 

"IPv6 tutorial stayed with the basics too long, could have moved faster." 

"I went to the first half of the ""BGP Troubleshooting"" tutorial.  The material was interesting but I wouldn't have minded a faster pace of presentation." 

"I was very encouraged with the BOF and tutorial subject matter; although, most information was  commonplace and overall uninspired." 

"I didn't attend the tutorials, so my numbers should be redacted out of the computation." 

"I attended Phil Smith's excellent BGP debugging tutorial.  The initial introductory material could have been skipped, but the rest was very much on target." 

"didn't attend the tutorials... other committments didn't allow, unfortunately" 

Hold NANOG in conjunction with what other group?

With ARIN makes huge sense - can't see what other orgs you'd want to run NANOG alongside though... 

Whatever is necessary.  Scales better than separate meetings. 


Too much time away from office with other back-to-back meetings. 


Perhaps SIGCOMM or IETF 

not sure which 


Might have come to this NANOG - depends on location.   Probably would have attended ARIN if not in conjunction with NANOG - depends on location. 

Might have attended ARIN if not back to back with NANOG.  Too long a conference when back to back 





IETF? (When in America.) 

IETF maybe? 

IETF :) 









I think it makes sense to have a back-to-back meeting with ARIN occasionally.  I am not convinced that all meetings should be back-to-back.  The week is not yet over so I can't fully give my opinion at this point regarding how well back to back meetings work. 

how about the Topless Dancers Union Convention 

how about the Topless Dancers Union Convention 

Equnix Peering Forum 

Don't meet on Halloween! 

Don't do IETF + NANOG! 

Depends on the organization 

DefCon security convention would be cool 

Cyberspace security 

But should be held back to back ARIN as well in case NANOG held with other organization. 

Bull Riding Championship 

arin and nanog should continue back to back if convenient. 


Anyhone but OU's homecoming. 

"This is like the butterfly ballot.  The previous multiple choices, the choice is on the left of the text.  But this one changes to the right.  It is a bit confusing." 

"MPLS forum, IETF or OIF" 

"Might be a good idea depending on the org., but keep it from getting too large." 

"Maybe SANS, other security related seminars" 

"Joint Techs / Internet2 engineering there seems to be some duplication of effort between these communities, though true the issues are somewhat different." 

"IETF, Usenix General, LISA" 


"IETF meetings in North America may be an obvious choice for a co-ordinated event like this one. Other possibilities are ICANN meetings which are held in North America.  Could also hold NANOG in the same area and on adjacent days to events such as N+I. Also peering events such as Equinix Peering Forums? These shouldn't be formally co-ordinated or in the same venue, necessarily." 

"I think NANOG stands alone very well. Longer trips don't seem appropriate most of the time. The toughest NANOG to attend is actually the summer one because so many other conferences run during that timeframe. But, trying to do back-to-back results in trips  longer than a week, which I won't do. " 

"I think it could make sense to hold NANOG back to back with IETF. To show the regular NANOGers which do not attend the IETF how things are being done over there.  On another matter, the fact that MPLS 2002 in Washington D.C. was also this week is not good. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but it should be avoided if possible." 

Future presentation ideas?

Would like to see an RIR intro (understand that it has been offered at prior nanogs) 

Will send in email. 

Spam traffic elevation. Source IP verification Abuse management techniques Analysis of DDos attacks over last time period. 

Someone ANIMATED!  (and I don't mean armed with cartoons like Prof. Zhang.) 

Peering and settlement issues  Going forward for IPv6 New streaming business models Enable carriers to share more hard-detailed information on MPLS deployments.  Allow them to provide it anonymously. 

My own interest (and employment) is in network monitoring and measurement. 

MPLS TE experience Modeling Tool 

More v6 from Microsoft Vixie ISPs 

More tools discussion. 

More studies on BGP instabilities 

More research oriented deployment is easy! 

More interaction will be good. 

More case studies! Specific cases encourage discussions. 

more carrier technical feedback to router and other vendors 

More about BGP and fast switching / fail over (other than MPLS).  More on IGP scaling. 

Measurements with more time for questions/discussion. 

Less vendor presentations 

Less academic snooze and more technical overviews. 


Implications of self-similarity on IP network operations Best common practices for BGP configuration Automation of network provisioning 

I really found the router requirements discussions useful. More feedback to and response from router vendors I think would be helpful. 

I am very upset we didn't have a peering BOF at nanog 26.  we need more peering! 

How to build/run a multicast backbone. Probably a tutorial rather than presentation. 

Get Bill Norton to update the general attendees on the ongoing efforts in the peering BOF and other peering forums.  The change in traffic patterns resulting from this work may effect capacity planning by ISPs. 

exchanges [IX] updates. The euro-IX model. use it. 

Enterprise reqirements/implementations-profiles of large customers wrt new technologies 


Confirguation management software 

Choose themes and advertise well in advance 

Cengiz or Mark Prior on IRR Toolset. K Claffy on anything related to her research. Larry Blunk on IRRd Lui Ping from CW on RPSL extentions to allow real world router configuration using IRRToolset. 

CDN panel.update Server load balancing panel/update (what works what doesn't) 

Analysis of DoS attacks. 

An IPSEC compatibility bakeoff would be interesting. 

"Try to summerize central themes and suggest working groups or additions to existing groups to tackle them, e.g., someone suggested after panel on traffic monitoring that ISPs need to leverage a collective set of requirements so vendors have a more unified roadmap list that might actually be implemented." 

"Traffic management w.r.t. peering - stuff about tools to help with this. Peering tactics. May be BoF Material.  Repeat the ""operational feedback to vendors"" item from time to time." 

"The Code Red & BGP interaction isn't done yet - the presentation here needs followup.  The question of flap dampening's dark side didn't come to much of a resolution - how widespread a problem is this?  If you change your policy, how far away will damping occur?  Are vendors interested in fixing this?  The ghost routes in the IPv6 table also look worthy of investigation - how can we have ghost routes several months after prefixes were withdrawn?  What can we do about it?  Does this suggest the emerging IPv6 ""infra""structure still isn't ready to bear production weight?" 

"Some type of posting board would be nice.  We found out later that other MSO (Cable companies) people were trying to organize a get together for MSO, so we could meet and discuss issues that are unique to our organizaitions" 

"Some speakers should work on their presentation skills a little - no names. Mumbling is hard to decipher at the back of the room, and some speakers seemed to dislike microphones somewhat." 

"Ops 101 - give the ISP point of view of daily operations of an ISP GMPLS Scientific Projects - maybe the community can help in the projects held by the non-profits. listing thess projects and sepcifically those which require help, can assist those orgs. " 

"OK, this is a second form...  Some discussion about P2P file-sharing apps and how they co-exist on the underlying physical Internet.  Take a look at this... http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~matei/PAPERS/ic.pdf

"Need to re-introduce peering BOFs. Need tutorials on QoS, SONET" 

"MPLS and VPN deployment tutorials, troubleshoting, statistics" 

"more stuff on what problems need solving, what vendors should be doing, etc.  more DDOS stuff" 

"More reports from folks in the other regions. Ito-San's Janapese v6 report was interesting, but what's happening in the rest of Asia?  Europe?   Was anyone here from Latin America at all?" 

"More on specifics of firewalls, do's and don'ts, weaknesses, strengths - national resources for countermeasures. We need some brave soul to speak to Internet Etiquette - the Internet Police looking for stupidoes.  Too few real villains and the get lost  in Wessels' data!  Bill Jones, NASA, [email protected]

"more nitty/gritty technical stuff in talks, more measurement stuff... being from US and in the trenches ipv6 is not that interesting to me, but understand that I should take a more world view, so continued ipv6 tech stuff... perhaps a talk on state of MAEs, NAPs, meet me sites in various cities. " 

"More discussionof real world issues between end users and ISPs.  End users are very knowledgable and have practical information on what works and what does not.  End users also have other non-technical information like end-user-ISP-NOC relationships, financial issues and its impact on technology decision making." 

"Maybe ""Setting up an infrastructure for automated tracing of DoS traffic from ISP to ISP""" 

"Keep presentation topics together, i.e., Day 1 am on v6, day 1 pm on BPB issues, Day 2 am on managmenent (FCAPS), Day 2 pm DNS, other services" 

"It would be nice of all presentations were on a single PC so the 'switching' of PCs to the projectors were not so disruptive.  Also, would be kind of nice for all speakers to use similar format of presenentation (not critical)" 

"IPv6, Routing" 

"I want know more tips/technique of other person. so, I like more tutorial type presenteations." 

"I think you've already got ep.net on the hook, good job. (Bill Manning re exchanges)" 

"Head to head performance test- each side picks one set of criteria (to even out.)   Again, to encourage participation and enjoyment." 

"General Comment:  Unfortunately there is a general disinterest among almost all speakers in organization and preparation of their talk.  For the love of god, please rehearse :) " 

"enough bgp this & that, measurement blah blah blah" 

"Design and performance monitoring of access (dsl, cable, satellite) networks" 

"BGP tricks.  Future of BGP/SBGP; using communities more, etc.  Discussion on various BGP and TE drafts currently published or sent to IETF." 

"Because the Internet is global rather than North American, I would like to see talks from high-level policy makers in the AP and EU regions discuss legal/political environments from other parts of the world that influence NA region operators. " 

- RFC 2547 - Config management 

General Session Comments 

Vixie was not helpful. 

Tuesday's topics were too academic (no practical information.) 

Topics should stick to the Internet as a whole not little subtopics. 

Tired of seeing previously shown content. Cathy - route flap dampening etc. 

This is my first NANOG and am extremely impressed with the speakers.  I should have done this years ago. 

The talks could have been more provocative. I had never attended NANOG before and had the (perhaps false) impression that the audience was usually more engaged. 

The Qwest presentation was particularly interesting - with specific information about how a carrier is solving some real problems. 

The Qwest presentation being presented bytheir vendor was unacceptable.  Very Poor. 

The Qwest discussion of MPLS fast reroute & accompanying example was a little hard to follow. 

The Monday panel was especially interesting and a GREAT topic to socialize at NANOG 

The complexity panel was great! 

Some topic were meant for higher level operators.  Smaller ISPs may not have the knowledge level of speakers.  As time goes on these operators may be at the level of the speaker or crowd.  Being on this advance level will not attract new participants. 

Some speakers had good info to present but need lessons in presenting material.  A few yawners. 

So far the panel on  Complexity is by far the one I got the most from. 

Security topics were really good. The measurement panel would have benefited by some co-ordination where speakers focus on separate non-overlapping areas. IPv6 sessions were good also. Like the panel on complexity. More of this type of discussion would be constructive 

route oscillation should have been in an earlier slot. many folks had to leave early so m issed out. those of us here were hitting brain drain by that point. 

Randy Bush is great.  Entertaining and excellent content. 

Please post Muhahed's slides from measurement/minotring trends.  His presentation very useful. 

Paul Vixie needs to speak up or else take a nap while someone else reads his presentation 

Paul V. needs to speak up. 

Panels don't seem to go well.  Lectures and presentations seem to work well.  Tutorials seem to work best. 

Overall on this NANOG there are lot of presentations on what problems we have and what additional features/options would be useful.  However very few practical solutions to these problems are offered.  On two previous NANOGs I attended there were lot of talk on how different networks deal with DoS and other problems as well as how to more effectively use BGP and tricks on configuration of routers.  Except for tutoirals and BOF this is not present on this NANOG. 

Most presentations to dry. I did like Jennifer Rexford's slides and presentation. Good pace.  

Most of the presentations were interesting. 

more Vijay! 

Measurement panel was boring for me. 

Love Randy Bush...DOn't always agree...but nice to see a confident person speak from his experience and beliefs 

Jennifer Rexford's talk was very useful! Now if we could get more advocacy for standarized vendor support for useful network management information (data)! 

ipv6 tutorial was excellent 

In regards to the level of detail. The probelm is there are different issues interesting different attendees. The lectures that interested me were not detailed enough and required a follow up with the lecturer which is not bad. It is a shame that such a follow up isn't shared by all relevant attendees. 

I'd like more technical details on traffic measurement in actual vendor environments. All of Randy Bush and Dave Meyer's panels were excellent!  This level of detail is a must. 

I would suggest more panel discussions.  Give the panelists a topic to tpeak to for 10 minutes and then have Q&A. 

I watch the presentation over the webcast and find it very useful. 

I thought Vijal and Randy were excellent speakers. I like the way topics are themed. It helps get a broader view of an area. 

I really liked the emphasis on measurements 

I am very glad to see security continuing  to receive attention at NANOG meetings. The BOF should be a regular addition to each meeting.   

Grouping like topics (ipv6) together was useful in focusing time.  The panel on measurement and monitoring of Internet backbones seemed that it could have easily been a single speaker topic since the views expressed were very similar. 

Great program 

Good organisation. Availability of Real Video clips and the presentation slides are great ! Keep the good work ! 

Good idea to cover v6 and security.  Please continue covering this topic. 

Good balance of topics covering most pressing issues.   Would like to see more of the traffic monitoring panel discussion in future meetings showing progress of groups like PSAMP. 

excellent talks - bgp flap / bush vendor requests / gill cyberspace gov stuff / sachs load on DNS / wessels bgp / work attack / wang 

Bill Woodcocks INOC idea was great...wish the website told us more about who to contact to become part of it. 

All good - it was kept smooth as usual! 

A lot of operator discussion on vendor feedback was presented.  Any consideration for making some official document from the NANOG community to capture some of this input? 

A good spread of currently relevant topics.  (On-line attendance only. The air fare is a bit stiff for physical attendance.) 

1.  Somewhat disconnected set of topics this time.  Would benefit from specific themes organized in advance. 2.  AOL's operational feedback talk was interesting and concrete. 3.  Vern's talk was repetitious and old info wrt previous nanogs. 

"With regards to ""A National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace: Marc Sachs"", I believe it is a shame to see that the current administration wants to extend its xenophobia to the internet.  As a developer who has spent many years on this medium, I firmly believe that the Internet should be free from any government regulation.  I sure believe that Mr. Ashcroft is an expert in something, but the Internet is not it, and I do not want him to tell me how to run the Internet. " 

"Way too much on IPV6 should have been a seperate splinter. Whatever happened to exchangeing discussion on the topics impacting all providers TODAY. IPv6 is a year out and needs to be discussed, but the topic of NANOG seemed to drift this time." 

"Vijay Gills' ""Operational Feedback to IP Equipment Vendors"" and  Jennifer Rexford's ""Using Measurement Data to Construct a Network-Wide View"" were very useful in highlighting requirements for equipment vendors. As an employee of an equipment vendor I can see that these presentations are having significant impact by generating a lot of useful internal discussion within my company." 

"Troubleshooting techniques:  add mBGP content, interactions with MSDP, V6 addr family configuration and maintenance" 

"Traffic Characteristics and Network Planning-Thomas Telkamp.  o  This was a very interesting subject.  It was prepared well.  However, it had too much data, and not enough input from the presenter.  I was hoping to hear about what worked and what didn't." 

"Too much IPv6.  Too much MPLS.  Good pannels, but not enough questions from the audience - but I am not sure how you can fix that. :)" 

"The range of topics seemed to be very small. It seemed that all topics were closely related, and seemed to relate to IPv6 and Network Monitoring." 

"The presentation by Mark Sachs was not useful, and the presentations on MPLS were less useful than the rest.  The toipcs related to BGP stability were very useful (route flap damping, BGP Behavior under Stress, Persistent Route Oscillation." 

"The Fed buy Monday morning should have had twenty minutes, now at hour and a half. Vijay's talk was good.  Wixie's talk on v6 nameservice was good." 

"Telkamp (GX) discussions were stellar and very informative.  Same thing w/ Vijay from AOL.  Presentation from Juniper, etc. was hard to follow, couldn't follow the speakers very well." 

"Speakers for the main program were often poor, but perhaps that's the unavoidable property of the pool of possible presenters.  The Tutorail presenters were better, though.  NANOG should always have its Gospel/BCP component, where wise presenters explain how (and why) certain approaches are the Right Way.  This lends itself to ""tv-style"" presenter to audience interaction: passive audience, presenter flips slides, little q&a, strong time structure.  This is important and necessary.  However, I feel the ""tv-style"" presentation flowed over into topics which should have been discussions.  The central example was the presentation on BGP Under Stress - was Andy O right about Code Red, or not?  This is (to me) the most valuable part of ""non-Gospel/BCP"" content for NANOG, but I feel it wasn't handled as well as it could be.  Presentations about data and about open questions are extremely valuable for keeping the interest of those attendees no longer needing lectures on BCPs.  Presenting material in ""tv-style"" when it's about open questions involving divergent interpretations of collected facts doesn't seem optimal.  For this one example, I would have preferred something like publication of a ""NANOG challenge"": provide the reference question - what happened to BGP in the week around Code Red, say.  Then organize presentation of analysis, including a few key/well-known folks, but also with open invitation to anyone else who wants to work on the question in advance of the meeting.  The Code Red data is perhaps a bit of a special case, because it's a case where data is available without severe privacy concerns.  However, I do believe the ""Program vs BOF"" structure might miss a component - the Program splits between BCP material and open questions, which I believe could be handled differently." 

"sometimes speakers assume we know more than we do so large swaths of various talks can be unintelligible to a large percentage of people in the room.  This is not a big deal however, as we can read the notes online and google search our way out of ignorance.  This is a great conference." 

"some speakers OK, many poor" 

"Some speakers are '1', some '3' They just talk to themselves and forget that they have an audience :)" 

"Some content was more interesting than others. Could have done without the lecture from the US Government though - NANOG is north america, not US, and it attracts an international audience. Not belittling the need for some discussion, but the speaker misjudged his audience, I feel." 

"Some are good, some suck, generally pretty obvious who is what" 

"Presentation by Marc Sachs was great. Presentation by Paul Vixie was ppor (poor visual aids, topic was overloaded." 

"Participation continues to be a letdown.  Perhaps, talks with more of a debate format would bring more  involement.  'Trends in Measurement' was the most interesting and prolific." 

"Panels were better organized than they sometimes are.  I still wouldn't call them ""panels"" though in that there was not significant dialogue between panelists.  They were serial presentations." 

"Panels had NO interaction; materials and organization conspired against this, even given contentious and timely toics.  This made them boring; even panellists were reading email during the panel." 

"panel discussions should have been more discussion, less presentation oriented" 

"I was pleased to finally make it to a NANOG.  I have kept missing it from the ""regional techs"" days of NSFNET!  found many of the presentations interesting and applicable to us (.EDU) as well." 

"I like the more concrete netork management track - tools tutoral and BOF and panel.  It brings back the roots of NANOG.  On the other hand, the continued trend in analyzing BGP is important and equally appropriate and worthwhile, as are the DoS talks." 

"Given the number of topics it would be nice if presenters would take a slide to DEFINE the problem which they are discusing (when appropriate).  In some cases (e.g., route flap) it wasn't initially clear what problem was initially being discussed." 

"Evaluating level of detail should range from too much to not enough, so that you know which direction to adjust.  In this case, some of them were a little  condensed." 

"Didn't like the mouth-foaming general talks, like Dave Meyer on Simplicity.  Preferred practical specific presentations like Vijay Gill's." 

"A good blend of topics this year.  I think the program flowed fairly smoothly, without feeling too rushed (well, mostly.)  Thank you for finding an alternative to Janis Joplin! :)" 

" Marc Sachs good addition Vern ""how to own"" - more from them, Telkamp, Vixie Duane Wessels talk a keeper too." 

"- a lot of unresolvable/contradictory ideas were presented - network management is obviously a big problem, but network management solutions are not being represented / presented / debated ... - the presentation mindshare of putting more stuff into router" 

BOF Comments

Very interesting BOF IPsec.  Robust and creative. I could see how the Internet community maintains bottom up approach although things are not happending so smoothly. 

Toolmakers more Rancid talks.  Rired of Randic.  Less formal than expected. 

Toolmakers - degraded into host config management.  Would have preferred network management. 

tool stuff was good - got off topic a bit but that is to be expected. ISP security BOF was excellent. 

The tools BOF was too loosely structured.  Not one person talked about the same thing and it seemed that it was more a talk about ARNCID and server configuration backups.  Lame! 

The entire tool BOF was basically centered around two camps.  Those who have large networks with lots of money and time to throw at making proprietary softwae and the Rancid camp.  There was little attention paid to the other companies who have tools that are paid for by customers. 

Stephen Stuart should do more with toolmakers..great stuff. 

Security BOF was worthwhile 

Really liked the Security BOF. Good interaction. I would just not plan at 9:00 PM. People were getting tired. 

Really liked the interaction and dialogue with major NSPs. 

Question 2 above is wrong - there weren't any formal presentations 

More BOFs - chance to create BOFs as needed/wanted. 

Merike Kaeo was great! 

It might have been nice to have more variety in BOFS -- these were basicly a redux of the tutorials. 

ISP security was a good mixing of smaller ISPs and top ISPs.  Very down to earth. 

I'm a first-timer to NANOG.  Does the speaker or someone else pick out they key discussion points overall in a 'meeting minutes' format.  Sometimes there are very interesting discussions going on with particular groups that others would benefit from. 

I want relevant BOFs for peering and economic models.  This will become an important issue for carriers post-bubble. 

i thought that both were quite good. 

Got a lot out of the security BOF.  Barry did a good job.  Would like to see Tony Hain work with him in the future. 

Good breakout and exposure to other ISP's approaches to problem solving 

Didn't go to any 

Didn't attend. 

didn't attend the BOFs... (had to meet up with some old friends  :-) 

Didn't attend any BOF as they did not cover topics that were applicable to my position and were late in the evening. 

Didn't attend 

did not attend 

could not attend 

Both BOFs were very useful. 

Bad timing for the ISP Security BOF.  Mission not met. 

Attended the Security BOF. Very useful information and stimulating discussion. 

As always GOOD! I miss Norton's doing one. 

"Went to the toolmakers BOF, and a little more structure would have been nice" 

"Went to the toolmakers BOF, and a little more structure would have been nice" 

"Toolmaker BOF was interesting, but not sure if representative of what larger providers are doing." 

"Too much competition - World Series, Mon. Nite Football - sorry" 

"There really weren't presentations, but the discussions were very interesting." 

"The Tools BOF and Security BOF both tended to toss out general statements like ""make sure you're configured to log scatterback traces"" (or was it backscatter trace?) Without giving even a basic rundown on how to do it or what exactly it is.  It makes it feel a bit too much of an 'old boys club' - maybe prepare a guick glossary of terms to hand out on way in?" 

"The security BOF initial lecture went way too fast through the slides.  Also, I couldn't find the BOF slides online. " 

"The security BIF was good, aside from a bit of  argument that went on beyond its usefulness." 

"The debate at the security BOF was open and good, but somewhat uncoordinated." 

"Security BOF was very interesting, very useful" 

"Security BOF was very good... some interesting contradictions came out, and some lame excuses too ;-). It was something we've needed to do for a while!" 

"Security BOF got a little too focused on reverse path.  I missed not having the peering BOF, hope it returns when Bill does." 

"It seemed that both BOFs were useful, I guess it is kinda hard to keep them in any sort of order. Maybe next year, the BOFs should be BEFORE the free beer..." 

"ISP/NSP Security, good back-and-forth - good data." 

"I was lurking, but became inspired.  " 

"I liked the security BoF, but it could have been a little more structured.  Did not go to the tools BoF." 

"I attended the Toolmakers BOF, it was interesting and I would encourage Merit to have more sessions where the audience size is smaller.  I think people can learn more and will get more out of the sessions when they are smaller and more focused on exactly what the participant is interested in." 

"Due to obligations, I missed two but was  encouraged by the feedback I heard from those  attending." 

"Both BOFs I attened results in good discussions. Again, I'd like to the security BOF be a regular installment. " 

"BOFs were great, however I wish we had a peering bof.  i think (even if it isn't being MC'd by Bill Norton) we should always do a peering bof.  peering is the main reason i attend nanogs these days." 




^ Back to Top