^ Top

NANOG27 Survey Results

Phoenx, Arizona 

Attendee Survey Results

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you? (choose one) 
Very useful  60   Useful  104   No opinion  2   Not very useful  2   Useless  1

 

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare? 
Better  44   About the same  68  Worse  2  N/A  47

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

The choice of topics was: 
Well Chosen 1 (56) 2 (85) 3 (23) 4 (30) 5 Poorly Chosen (0)

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent  1 (44) 2 (89) 3 (31) 4 (3) 5 Unsatisfactory (0)

The speakers were: 
Excellent  1 (46) 2 (91) 3 (24) (7) 5 Unsatisfactory (0)

General Session Comments

How did you like the tutorials?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen 1 (51) 2 (44) 3 (25) 4 (6) 5 Poorly Chosen (2)

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent 1 (46) 2 (44) 3 (27) 4 (5) 5 Unsatisfactory (3)

The speakers were: 
Excellent 1 (50) 2 (45) 3 (22) 4 (5) 5 Unsatisfactory (2)

Tutorial Comments

How did you like the BOFs?

The choice of topic was: 
Well Chosen 1 (69) 2 (36) 3 (18) 4 (2) 5 Poorly Chosen (2)

The level of detail in the presentations was: 
Excellent 1 (50) 2 (88) 3 (28) 4 (7) 5 Unsatisfactory (0)

The speakers were: 
Excellent 1 (51) 2 (47) 3 (17) 4 (5) 5 Unsatisfactory (1)

BoF Comments

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

Yes (52) No (109)

 

How often do you refer to the web archives of previous NANOG presentations?

Frequently 
1 (29
2 (31)
3 (60) 4 (26
5
Never (13)

 

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

http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog27/whatworked27...)

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

http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog27/presoideas27...

 

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.

DePaul University John Kristoff

Intel

Rod Stuhlmuller   (We would not be willing to host, but would be interested in acting as a sponsor for the breaks.)

we would be interested in hosting a NANOG meeting  Marc Kneppers Telus Communications Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada (alternate: James DeMong)

 

What worked and what did not?

You might consider expanding the Beer 'n Gear activity.

Wonderful WLAN!!!  

With groups such as NANOG, it's extremely valuable to have a single location (lobby, bar, etc) where everyone can easily gather and find others.  There was no such place at the Phoenix Hilton Squaw Peak resort.  That's an important aspect of these meetings that is sometimes missed.
wireless workedvbery well introduced a debate: is the traffic of the user the concern of the ISP(during a worm attack?) the IPv6 deployment talk was kinda thin

Wireless worked well - couldn't get MCAST to work - no SAPs - no direct access to groups even w/out SDR...

wireless worked very well, ssh to the office took a long time to go thru, dns problems perhaps?

Wireless networking is great, and always worked in conference..  however it would be nice to either select hotels that have internet connectivity in the rooms, or consider this in the wireless design.

wireless network had extremely poor coverage, thrown together with no thought or knowledge more WISP talks and new technology talks

wireless is great

Wireless again worked excellent.  Miscellaneous tables for pelple to use around the presentation rooms were very handy for getting work dne

What can I say? 

Well-  food, facilities, location(Phoenix)

try to extend wireless

The wireless was good  however it didn't reach the hotel rooms and hotel didn't have internet access

The wireless coverage was much worse than past meetings./ Also, the hotel did not have a lounge area with  wireless access

The various mix of topics, worked well, a good mix between the acedemics and operators- the wireless deployment talks were very informative

The timing of presentations was a bit bizarre. I would prefer to have a full two day conference rather than ending on Tuesday at 3:30, when some discussions could easily have been extended for another 10 minutes. I realize it's difficult to predict the timing of presentations and questions though.

The slight injection of academic stuff (BST an the worm  tracing y Berkeley)

The network and facilities were great, along with the speakers and topics.  Even the Beer and Gear was educational.  The only improvement that could have been made would have been power provided during the tutorials and BOFs.

The hotel was very nice but too expensive.

The hotel this time was a little disappointing. There does not seem to be an easy place near the meeting room to gather and network with peers. That is an important aspect of NANOG. The hotel layout this time distracted from that atmosphere. 

The conference hotel was not optimal.  We need a centralized location (e.g. "lobby bar") to congregate.  Much of the usefulness of NANOG is meeting & talking to other network providers.  The hotel was very nice, but it just made finding people after & during the conference difficult.

Teach the speakers how to use the laptop; make sure they all do it.

Single hotel with a bar. A lot of work gets done in the lobby/bar bof, and having a distributed hotel makes that much harder as there is no central gathering place.

Several speakers need larger graph axis titling

select some real music (instead of noise) for pre-meeting and breaks

Select a hotel that is closer to more fast food restuarants.  This trip does not require a car - so restuarants need to be within walking distance.  In this case the bulk of restuarants were over-priced hotel sit down restuarants.  There were 3 other sit-down restuarants across the street - but it can be desirable to spend less than $5 on a lunch and not have to devote an hour to the affair.

Rodney did a really good job of organizing this NANOG

Provide a list of local lunch venues, no more than 5/10 mins from meeting venue, places where people can get a meal inside of an hour - and enough locations to split up the attendees so that their kitchens stand a chance of turning the food out in time for people to get back for the afternoon.  Also, tip-off local venues, and especially the hotel eateries, about the load they can expect.  In a city centre location it's less of a problem, but at this meeting, the options for eating were limited, so it's important the hotel could cope.  This venue also lacked a central bar/lounge, which made it hard to meet with people, unless you specifically "stalked" them!

Only criticism is that the layout of the Hilton didn't  allow for a naural gathering place(ig. Lobby, Lobby Restaurant/:ar  w/ wireless)djuring breaks and enenings-was nice to see different vendor mis at BEER-N-GEAR

Not a lot of help in the tutorial room for printer access, and lack of paper in printer.

no comments really, i was generally happy with how it all went. was a good nanog.

Network worked great.

Network connectivity was a bit sketchy.

Net connectivity and power was excellent (as usual).

need to not file evaluation before the end of the sessions.

Mostly good- poor cell phone coverage(for at least my provider T mobile

more time for QA period after presentation

more technical presentations

more peering related topics-new content/applications exp: peer to peer  how that/these change peering and routing problems

Monday felt compressed, just because there was so much on.  This is a credit to the program committee, of course, but I think we could spread material out a little more, and leave more time for dinner/drinks.  As a location, my main complaint about this one was the way the "social centers" were poorly defined and spread out - this dissipated some of the best social aspects of NANOG.  You couldn't reliably stumble into folks at the principal watering hole.  I'm not sure this is really something the organizers can do much about, but I do feel the meetings benefit from an obvious, and if need be advertized, "watering hole of last resort"

Location was great - as was February timing in a hot area. :)   Grouping talks of similar topics together worked well in cases of not being interested in certain topics, knowing when to come back.  Moderation w/ different people worked well.  Having chairs in back worked excellently.

liked beer and gear vendors

IP6V name server is needed, specifically the IPV6 stateless  ONS discovery eg:fecD:VV:fffff::1

Include more BOF's. They help to place names to faces, as well as put people with similar interests/projects together for future discussion.

In terminal room, BOF room need AC power, table  secure wireless solution

Improvments:Better beer selections at the Beer and Gear -- less us macro beers- more microbrew would be appreciated

Improvements: Better beer selections at the beer and gears. The US macro beers (bud, miller, coors) are not very good. Please provide more US micro brewery options.

I'm not sure, but will hear about it when everyone returns.

i'll tell you after my next NANOG

If possible, have NANOG in a hotel that doesn't spread people all over. 

If it ain't broke-don't fix it

i would prefer to see a longer discussion track if possible. coming down for a day and a half (barring tutorials) is expensive for non US participants (i.e. Canada, for me at least)  the quarterly meeting period seems TOO frequent for me to attend - i have a hard time seeing the information change that rapidly between meetings  a suggested improvement might be a semi-annually format with longer general session and more properly worked out presentations   this is definitely a good place to get proper/qualified networking information though and is helpful.

i would like to hear more about UNE-P, about costs for transport from ICEC, et etal,about customer(carrier customer) needs e.g. Qos, VPx1.  I would like a little less on BGP,enough

I will now use the web archives

i was happy- hotel was very convenient- I'd prefer a more affordable one though

I thought the camoflage theme was unfortunately out of taste given the current international issues and the "high terror level" - I understand that the theme was more focused on slammer and other issues where we need to down in the trenches but perhaps a little thought needs to be applied here v's the cool factor.

I may look through previous nanog presentations now that I hae a better idea of what is being presented.  I would move the social events such as beer'n'gear earlier so that people could meet their peers more easily.  The added security focus was beneficial.

I liked the presentation of  new concepts and experiments slightly more content in their perspective would be beneficial

I liked the idea of ahving moderators( very efficient) Everything was well organized and well run/  Room set up was really good. 

How about setting up a Jabber or IRC chat server for attendees?

hotel is to large (spread out). places for people to congregate are few.

hotel configuration was not good for hanging out and meeting people

Have people turn off cell phones ringing.  Deployment of  wireless nnetwork very good.  Real world datat/examples. Who was running Ping 192.35.164.31

For being the whole day at the meeting and not having time for using all the offers the hotel has, it might be better tochoose hotels miether lower level(swimming pool, golf course,..) but more effiecient things like only bed/bath/toilet/

Excellent WWW presense, and technical support.

excellent

excellent

Everything worked well, location was well chosen.  I think that some type of recreational activity should be included in future nanog's to encourage "team-building" and networking.  An example, paint-ball, but something less extravagant may be equally effective.

Everything seemed to work well. The only improvement I can think of is making oatmeal-raisis cookins available at the break

don't raise fees-reduce cookies if needed

Didn't know about web archives

Connectivity was AWESOME!!!  Wireless Network was great.  Would be nice if we could get wirless coverage to the rooms, but that might be a difficult problem to solve, particularly in such a large hotel.

can the tunes before the mtgs and during the breaks.  or, at least crank it down to a level which makes it possible to concentrate

Breakfast, Beer and Gear, and general flow of the meeting all good

all worked well

agreeabel location IP phones in terminal room would be useful meeting format could benefit from extra day music during breans was too loud

A little less-expensive hotel would be nice.

A few of the sessions went over-better time control?

 

Future presentation ideas?

Would like to see presentations from vendors (e.g. Juniper, Cisco, etc.) on implementation of the security suggestions presented at this NANOG (e.g. BTSH).

Workgroup style sessions that allow hands on work.  Perhaps a live-lab to do demos, show theory of operation and allow us to show-off and test theory.  Maybe like an extended beer-and-gear without the beer.

What's the point these days for all of the exchange point update talks?  It would be good to hear about new techniques and technology used at exchange points, but most of what I heard was either information updates for their existing customers, or marketing attempts to get new customers.  It doesn't seem that either activitity is really all that appropriate or helpful.

to me - issues around high-availablility are always very welcome.

something on mapping: LUMETA, MATRIX, CAIDA

Some more stuff about the optical transport side.

service provider issues for identification of misdirected, anomalous traffic carrier strategies for recovery from such anomalies and tools  SP requirements for network recovery as related to applications running on spnetworks

See above - some kind of "data bof", where instead of a presentation assuming a packaged piece of analysis, we take some data, or perhaps multiple views of a single event, and spend most time on discussion (bof style), not dictation.  This, of course, is an attempt to get away from the "couch potato" feel of Eugene.  I think we got out of that some for Phoenix, and I'h hoping we can find ways to encourage the trend.  We need the usual tutorials and the usual presentations, but interactive sessions could be increased.

security tutorial

security operations

SBGP Anycast deployments

Profile some content distributors, emerging traffic patterns.

Please request presenters to always have the page number shown on their slides.  Have portal so questions can be submitted online as the presentation takes place.  

Nothing here

Not yet, but... by next NANOG, I might be ready to present an idea for Packet Signature Flooding Protocol.

not yet

Not to spawn a religious debate, but perhaps a best practices session/bof?

Nope

My impression is that there weren't many operatores present, mostly sales/peering/engineering/-maybe more presentations from actual operators

MPLS Tutorial

MPLS in detail. ISIS Deployment across ISP backbones

more security topics

More operational/security focus to solve problems outstanding right now

more on securing bgp.. s-bgp v's so-bgp more on securing dns, dns-sec and/or tsig perhaps more statements on critical infrastructure (root servers, in-addr servers etc) and what is being done to make it all more robust. with the first two statements in mind.

more on intra-inter domain traffic engineering BGP based inter-domaine TT2 OSPF/IS-IS Intra-domaine TT2 MPLS-base TT2

more information regarding peering and security cooperation between ISPs

more information about technical implementations instead of just theoretical talking points

mail handling, DOS hardening

Like to see some participation from relevant ietf working groups, what they are working on, what is needed, how the networking community can help.

Keep the talks from Van Jacobson coming. He mentioned a couple of topics. The type of talk that started Monday morning is perfect - keep these summary form talks coming.

It would be nice to have more infosec speakers who have operational knowledge about securing enterprise/critical networks.  I think that a talk about the fundamentals of infocec would be very useful.  Speakers would include Bill Murray(Deloitte) Peter Tippett(Tru Secure) Bob Abbott([email protected]) Marcus Ranum, Paul Robertson(TruSecure)

ipv6 wireless deployment 6pe deployment/future

IPv6 transition, including in particularly DNS More on DoS mitigation and protection New router queueing/cogestion strategies Validating BGP routes

IPR roast make fun of the worst offenders

include spam in security.  not all attacks are only packet-based

I'm coming from an enterprise perspective right now, but many of the topics that are primarily SP driven have some enterprise applicability. It might be interesting to try and increase the enterprise participating, perhaps with a split track one afternoon. I know this has been done in the past (though I wasn't around then). The topics on WLAN were interesting and could easily have spawned a longer discussion (given time constraints, though, I didn't comment). Things like the ISP SEC BOF gave people a good opportunity to discuss issues in a free-form manner.  Discussions about management/monitoring systems, especially as related to security issues, seems like it would have interesting topics.

I could have maybe done a talk on migrating from one mid-scale VPN to another , but I don't have anything written up- Paul Caskey
Good uses of peer-to-peer networking

exchange points with actual members peering BOF IDV6 some     kind of analysis of major    sinks  and sources of traffic in the internet today

Deployment of DNSSec.  

Content Provider issues and problems - what are they, and what is being done to resolve them...

Better wireless coverage.  Pick somewhere with better cellular phone coverage

Begin your solicitation process earlier.  How about focusing each NANOG day on particular topic areas -- routing, peering, security, troubelshooting, etc.

avoid presentations that contain phrases like "we need vendors to do X" ... this did not appear to me to actually lead to ANY constructive discussion or work  if this is intended to be a vendor-neutral discussion, why must we resort to complaining and relying on them to fix the problems. even if they do address these problems, they will cease to if it becomes cost-prohibitive or unmarketable and we are back at square 1  focus on internal capabilities and avoid vendors

(food: non-dairy creamer for coffee such as soy milk)  Other than that! It was great!

 

Tutorial Comments

What if we didn't attend the tutorials? An option for N/A would be useful, espcially if you're accidently clicked a radio button and now you can't unclick it

Very usefull int he common world as normal.   

very good in general- in particulary the BST presentation

Tutorials are repeated.  They don't have depth

The tutorials were too high level.  It may have been more useful for beginners though

The tutorials described as intermediate/advanced were really beginner level. The empahasis of "best practices" is always nice. Tutorials given in rooms without tables should include tutorial network topology printed sheets to better allow folks to follow along.

The level of the presentation were basic and not advanced enough. BGP techniques/BGP troubleshooting for instance were too basic. Most attendees want to learn and these were a bit basic. Maybe creating an advance tutorial track is a good idea. 

The BGP tutorial should have a hand out and the advanced portion should grow larger configuration examples.

the BGP could have started a little slower, a little advanced for me, a first time attender at NANOG.  I was able to follow the tutroials at the last SIGCOMM easier than these.  I am not a hands on practicioner, though.

some presentationsa were confusing-not well organized  Van J's was by far the best

Phillip was very good

Phillip Smith was a wonderful speaker and had great real world examples for BGP that really brought the session to a solid completion.  Simply a wonderful speaker on the topic.

Phil Smith was excellent .  would service to see and advanced tutorial

Phil Smith seems to be an excellent mentor.

Phil gets better and better on BGP

Peering BOF could stand a little change in style-Info useful and valuable

Only applies to Inter-domain MC and BGP troubleshooting tutorials.

Loved the V6 tutorials

Joseph from Juniper is a very good presenter - he dealt well with a very lethargic audience.  The material was a bit dry - he tended to flash past the example networks without getting people involved in the "sleuthing" I think he was aiming for.  But dryness is inevitable in the tutorial stuff this conference should always have, so I think he did well.  Tony, unfortunately, disappointed me.  I know he can do better; I've seen it before.  IPv6 is important for this forum - we need to keep up the drumbeat.  Tony's content was on point, but he just didn't seem to have the drive to get it across.  Again, the audience lethargy was a challenge, so I don't blame him - I'll put it down as just him having a bad, or at least below average, day.

Is the basics BGP really still needed?  Even more advanced tutorials would be helpful.

IPv6 was very interesting but too rushed... I would suggest have that presentation broken up.

ipv6 implementation EXCELLENT!!! I feel more time should have been alloted though, the last portion of the presentation seemed rushed due to time constraints.

I thought that the multicast tutorial was an excellent summary, documenting the arduous task of debugging multicast issues.

I think it was rroly planned to have two separate BOP tutorials and to have them at the same time

I only attended the mulicast IP debugging techniques tutorial

I liked the Philip Smith tutorial very much. Tony Hains  tutorials level was more beginner than intermediate.  More detail would have been better

i liked the concentration on BGP.  it's exxential to what most of us do and important to get everyone "on the same page"

I found Philip Smith to be clear and engaging.

I didn't attend all of the tutorials, but it was good to see an introductory level BGP tutorial. Spreading clue to less experienced ISPs is a good thing to see at NANOG.

I did not attend any of the tutorials

i am a relatively junior networking member, and so the bgp talk on sunday was excellent for me

Having the intro BGP session was an excellent idea.  The advanced BGP session could have been more advanced.

Great topic - Litvanyi had some very timely info - PITA to support MCAST - good to see some practical ways to characterize and approach the proablem.

Can you alternate between BGP and security tutorials, and begin to focus on traffic engineering, and performance guarantees?  Vendor specific presentations in this area would be fine with me.

Can I see them when they are made live on the web.

BGP tutorial repeated too many times-any new?

BGP  tutorial was good, but little allowance for questions

better power arrangements.   the power setup for  the main conference was great.  would have been nicer if there were more than two outlets for all the folks in the tutorials.

Before I knock anyone too much, I should put up and present one myself.

Attended just one-IPV6 in evening - laundry  list of topics not intrinsically exciting , I'm afraid 

 

General Session Comments

We shuld focus on protecting routing processes from being brought down by a worm

Watch from the net.  I notice the change of keeping the lights up and the camera on the speaker.  While all the slides are on line, it's a challange to keep sync'd. I think you'll see this when you attempt to view the archives. It would be really cool if you could do a picture-in-picture to show just enough of the slide screen to help the remote viewer remain in sync.  In my view, this is a tiny criticism.  Overall, the presentations are great.  Thank you.  

Van Jacobson's presentation was interesting.  We will discuss it at my company.  Nic Weaver's slammer presentation was informative as well.  The allegiance migrahon story was fun to hear

Van Jacobson BST definitely one of the best NANOG presentations of all time.  Hopefully the router vendors will start implementing this ASAP. 

Van Jacobson 1 Overall Average 2  BST definitely on of the best of all Nanog talks

Van Jacobsen talk very good

This was the best NANOG I've attended.  Please continue to focus on the commercial issues -- such as exchanges, settlement, and inter-carrier performance guarantees.

The program was good. The speakers did a good job.

the Peering and Sec BOFs should happen every NANOG

The NAP presentations are a bit long these days.  They essentially are just an advertisement for services.  Perhaps finding a way to keep them more relevant.

The NANOG program is always strong. This year was no exception. There was a good mix of research, operational, and security. 

the ix talk was a bit much

the boring exchange point updates need to be punted to a time slot that is at the end or start of the day.

Speakers varied in quality greatly.  Some talks were great, but others really should have been edited out...

Security BOF could have been earlier, considering the fact that most of the people here did actually attend that too.

Sapphire talk was a particularly nice start on a Monday morning with something so germane :-)

Program is quite good, only  tiring, is so condensed for 2.5 days.  It would be nice to expand to 3 days or 3.5

Peering Evolution was useful since the golden age of peering happened before my time.  I really enjoyed the wireless talks because of my involvement with deployment, and the varied talks on security were highly relevant.

overall, very good selection and presentation.  It wuld be nice to have a realtime question system.   This could be as simple as a web page that allows the audience to post questions that are only displayed to the speaker

NANOG is, as always, well run and informative.  for me, I sometimes am not up to speed on some topics(i.e. wireless) and the talks are consiquently incomprehensible. I do not know how to solve this as I now it will be boring for some people if the speaker goes into some basics
much better than hours of ddos gribbage. NON-overlapping BOFs are good.  BOFs extremely late are Bad. 

More American, English-speaking, presentators for future conferences.  Also, better wireless access.

Monday morning was great. The BOFs were terrific - good discussion, good meeting people, keep the focus on building community. 

moderators are a good idea 

late monday talks discussed routing approachs protocted by patants or pending patents that may not be feasable to apply because of ipr issues.

IXP forum-drop

it was a good programme for once... more operationally interesting things anyway...

IPv4 Address Allocation and BGP Routing Table Evolution. The talk was a little fast and the slides  are difficult to decipher.

i was pleased with he agenda this meeting.  Items were grouped together will and the topics were interesting- Great Job!

I like the security stuff - BTSH, Dave Meyer, Sprint & Vijay Gill, AOL.  The research papers were also good.  Much better than before when people would do research without talking to network providers, so the research was ... less relevant to the "real world".

i alwasy enjoy hearing Phillip Smith and Bill manning speak.

I  most appreciate discussin of actual deployments, like the wireless deployments

groovy

groovy

Great as normal.  

Good focus on security

All were generally very good.  I got the impression Dan Golding's talk seemed biased towards the AOL model of how they want to see peering evolve rather than reflecting overall sentiment.  It is probably too conspiracy theory to think that it was a talk given to help encourage people to follow their lead, but some may look at it that way.

all of the speakers were good.  Much better then previous NANOGS with the single exception of the peering talk by the AOL guy.  It was a disservice since AOL is wanting to be a TIER 1 network and force certain peers to pay them

a few of the talks resembled BoF material rather than presentations  i would prefer the presentations to contain 'answers' rather than simply questions, unless the questions are derived from work which was actually done and provided a null or false results 

A few of the Monday afternoon talks (TE, TE for OSPF networks) seemed lacking in specific operational practices. Clearly NANOG topics can stray somewhat, but it seemed difficult to get the "message" out of the talk.  I was glad to see the SIP topic.

 

BOF Comments

What about extending BOFs to sunday night, too? 

very useful

Very timely security BOF info, keep evolving the peering BOFs for those that benefit from them. If NANOG can handle a Peering BOF for Tier 1s and High Volume peers, I don't think they will participate. Much better to build the community of willing peers.

Think you should have more.  Good time to face to face and allow for those to meet in real world activites.

The Security BOF was great and should continue as part of NANOG.

The security BOF seemed to be a little bit silly I liked the peering BOF

The security BOF got some good converstion going, but the peering one was too long.  Maybe a hard copy or soft copy  could be provided for people wanting to set up peering, and then we could discuss some issues instead of listening to someone with 100MB of traffic plea  for peering

The security BOF awas great! Informative, good commentators, and ideas being traded!!

The peering BOF was very useful, much more so than I would have thought if I hadn't attended.  Both BOFs contain a little too much personality and immaturity from a select few, but that is probably typical.

The Peering BOF was probably was the highlight.  Bill Norton proved to be and excellent moderator, and allow for productive criticism to come from the floor.

The peering BOF was overkill, the peering personals could easily be handled online.

The peering bof run by Bill Norton should continue.  The data collected at the BOF should only be distributed to BOF attendees. If other organizations want the data, they should attend!

the peering bof is an important event and needs to be continued. it was good that this bof was less commercialized than in the past. very informative and useful for meeting with other peering coordinators.

the Peering BOF hosted by Mr. Bill Norton was gery good! I'd like to see a repeat of the "toolmakers" BOF

The peering BOF could use  more hard data

The NSP Security BoF was excellent.  Definitely need to have this every time!  The peering BoF was good, but needs a little more "new" information, it is getting repetative.  I do not think we should stop, just update it a little more.

The ISP sedurity BGF was really cool,  Barry was good

the IRG guy had a cold and was boring

The format of the BOF sessions was excellent.  It was easy to discuss issues at the security BOF because of the small room size and microphones.  

Barry was an excellent moderator of the security BOF because of  his knowledge of the subject and ability to lead a discussion

the BoFs basically turned into presentation of data points and not discussions. this data was already available in the news or on mailing-lists  near the end, some discussion broke out, but it seemed to mainly be re-hash of issues in which the participants already had stronly held and widely heard participants. it was a basic summary of mailing-list archived discussions . with no new material  for a newbie to NANOG the BoFs were disappointing in their lack of actual information

Security BOF was good, but would have liked more of a dialogue on what can be done in the face of attacks

Security BOF was  perfect

Security BOF good-

Security BOF #II: Enjoyable and lively topic.

Security BOF #II was enjoyable and lively topic

Security BOF - Good topic overall, but was a bit much repetition of the same thing over and over again. 

securitty BOF needed more time. People left early to go to peering BOF

Peering BOF: How can I get the slides? It is impossible to write down all contact info. The process of sharing the info is not clear....

Peering BOF. BOF has a strong feeling of an equinix meeting. Other exchange facilities should be representated to help peering coordinators understand what all the options are.Bill Norton does a great job and we need the BOFs to continue,but a less bias opinion is needed.

Peering BOF was most operationally relevant

peering BOF unexciting, same old stuff

Peering BOF -- Please continue to share the list of participants among the participants.

Peering BOF  Great introductions, great presentation content, but quickly degraded into a philosophical debate between AOL and everyone else on the merits of peering.  Everyone has there own motivations of peering, unfortunately AOL feels their own views should be imposed on everyone else.

only attended ISP Security BOF

Lots of interesting thoughts, very educating discussions.

ISp security BOF - a bit too long

ISP SEC was, once again, very useful in identifying current issues, discussing possible solutions, and learning what other people are doing. Unlike IETF, for example, NANOG participants are generally interested in solutions that leverage existing technology or have clear operational interest.
I'm biased, of course :-)  The fact that we ended up serializing the BOFs, and running very late, suggests this stuff might need incorporation into the main flow of the program.  Running so late on Monday, and then finishing early Tue, seems to just set people up for exhaustion or skipped meals.  I suspect Barry's original session objectives were rather overrun by those of us presenting data, but it's always been my impression that data goes over well here.  I'll leave other surveys to comment on whether this was the case for the Security BOF specifically, but in general I'd support the idea of some kind of "data bof" in future.  Worm events are a good catalyst for this, I think.

I didn't like the fact that the peering one started at 9:00pm.  Earlier would be better.

I didn't attend any of the BOFs I hope they are going well.

I did not attend the BOF', but only because of an operational emergency in my network

I am very pleased to see the Security BOF become a regular happening.

Great Slammer Worm BOF.  

Great peering BOF!

Fewer stupid peering personals and more operational focus

especially liked the peering BOF

both BOF's were excellent in the choice of topics

BOFs late at night bad

BOF on Worm was excellent

Bill's peering BOF is always an important event at NANOG and was as valuable as ever this time.

Bill Norton's BOF/Peering was excellent! Bery, bery helpful and  practical  for my role- I feel many of my peers benefited as well

Bill Norton peering BOF is most useful event of conference

a lot of good information came out of the Security BOF.

 

 

 

 

^ Back to Top