^ Top

NANOG 40 Survey Results

 

NANOG 40 Survey Results

Bellevue, Washington (June 3-6, 2007)

How did you attend NANOG?

in person in Bellevue

0.964 (134)

via Web - Real Media

0.0072 (1)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

0.0 (0)

via Web - DVTS Multicast

0.0 (0)

via Web - Windows Media

0.0288 (4)

Answered question

139

(skipped this question)

2

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

0.3309 (46)

Useful

0.6115 (85)

No Opinion

0.0144 (2)

Not Very Useful

0.036 (5)

Useless

0.0072 (1)

Answered question

139

(skipped this question)

2

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

YES

0.2806 (39)

NO

0.7194 (100)

Answered question

139

(skipped this question)

2

If you have attended a previous NANOG, how does this NANOG compare?

Better

0.237 (32)

About the Same

0.3926 (53)

Worse

0.0963 (13)

N/A

0.2741 (37)

Answered question

135

(skipped this question)

6

Did you find the General Session seating arrangements satisfactory?

YES

0.9338 (127)

NO

0.0662 (9)

Answered question

136

(skipped this question)

5

Did you find the public BoF room of value?

YES

0.7823 (97)

NO

0.2177 (27)

Answered question

124

(skipped this question)

17

Did you find the General Session and Tutorial/BoF schedule acceptable?

YES

0.875 (119)

NO

0.0662 (9)

NO OPINION

0.0588 (8)

Answered question

136

(skipped this question)

5

Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?

YES

0.1884 (26)

NO

0.8116 (112)

Answered question

138

(skipped this question)

3

Comments on the Newcomers Orientation:

Answered question

67

(skipped this question)

74

  1. Good. but it concentrated too much on the meeting interworkings of NANOG at the expense of providing some hightlights on why or how topics are shown, what are the "hot topics" for NANOG as selected by the community, etc.
  2. as a first timer, I was impressed at the level and type of information presented to the new attendees. The attendance by repeat members of all types, not just a token few was very important and helpful at releivng the stress of not knowing wha tthe entire conference was about, it's format,.. the best advice was given in this session.. I can offer no suggestions on how to perfect it, it was great. Thanks to Bill, Ren, Randy and Especially MERIT for making it a great experience.
  3. Nice job adding politics into the orientation.
  4. Went a little deep into stuff better suited to the community meeting
  5. I liked the Orientation except for the very obvious infighting which was NOT necessary. That was VERY sad and frustrating.
  6. Wow guys, keep the focus on NEWCOMERS. It's not a time to air organizational dirty laundry. Also, if you're trying to welcome newcomers, maybe actually walking up to them and welcoming them would be a good idea. Many newcomers were standing around outside afterwards looking at each other, and none of the Nanog Cognizenti were paying them much attention.
  7. Good discussion, other than the digression to material that should have been shifted to the Community meeting.
  8. I attended this with one of our companies first time attendees and thought that it was useful.
  9. N/A
  10. didn't go
  11. Did not go.
  12. did not attend
  13. didn't attend
  14. Didn't attend
  15. Despite previous thinking, I believe it should run into [maybe wwith 10 min bio break] the community meeting.
  16. Did not attend
  17. did not attend
  18. Not a newcomer. Didn't attend.
  19. n/a
  20. Did not attend, sorry.
  21. perhaps a little too much on the PC / SC side of things as far as the discussion went.
  22. Useful for orientation
  23. Over ran and became a Community Session by accident - Bill shouldn't have done this.
  24. bill's talk veered into issues that bleonged in the community meeting.
  25. N/A
  26. NA
  27. Did not attend
  28. Not of any value. I should have just gotten in on Monday instead of sunday.
  29. na
  30. N/A
  31. Did not attend.
  32. N/A
  33. Interesting and interactive
  34. Boring format- needs some type of interactive activity. Inappropriate reference made to problems between PC and SC - should have been left for the community forum. Social after the session was not very effective - should have been member of PC, SC, and others to interact with newcomers. I noticed many newcomers standing around alone.
  35. Great
  36. N/A
  37. Too Political
  38. N/A Didn't attend
  39. Nice thanks to Ren Proro:)
  40. Nice Intro. Thought that the tension between Merit and committe (advisory/steering) was not really needed
  41. N/A
  42. N/A
  43. N/A
  44. Good, But Norton went on a bit too long
  45. Good introduction and interactions - room too dark
  46. It was well attended by the new folks. If the community mtg. would have followed they would have met more old timmers
  47. Did not attend
  48. A lot of information on the history of NANOG - not a lot on how to submit proposals or really get involved with the community
  49. One word: Awesome! set all expectations. Explained the group, so that all the jargon and community stuff made sense. Having repeat member there giving testimonials was great
  50. didn't attend
  51. did not attend
  52. I would have found the orientation to be more useful if the discription of the organization of NONOG had been shortened or moved to the community meeting
  53. Good
  54. Good way to get started - sets a good tone - useful info
  55. good
  56. n/a
  57. n/a
  58. n/a
  59. useful, illustrative, clarifies who's who
  60. n/a
  61. n/a
  62. It was good but i was surprised at the politics brought up
  63. good!
  64. n/a
  65. satisfactory
  66. very good
  67. very good and orientative

Comments on the General Session:

Answered question

62

(skipped this question)

79

  1. Great organization, no changes needed.
  2. More desks, please.
  3. The webcast is rather awful: really bad audio that skips whenever the camera position skips and right now unintellegible speech and no video anymore.
  4. talk quality was highly variable
  5. What general session? It was a whine fest with little content outside of Sir Steenbergens panel, which, when a panel is the best content you have it is fairly pathetic. But then again, at least we didn't have Todd Underwear nay-saying V6 as usual. That was a plus.
  6. very good
  7. Some sleepers, but generally a good benefit.
  8. The general session meetings were attended well and inforative.
  9. The programme could have been a bit stronger, but I guess that's all our fault.
  10. Overall, the sessions were well presented.
  11. Good.
  12. liked most of it -
  13. pretty decent. I would have preferred more operator focus rather than academic papers
  14. Up-to-date slides online are great for those of us with lousy eyesight. Some were tweaked before being presented and couldn't be followed online.
  15. Nice mix of presentations
  16. Good programme. (Spot the Brit!) Interesting talks, and I'm pleased that we've had plenty of questions raised in response to most of them. Quite a tightly packed programme - I remember not so long ago, we were finishing sessions quite early, so even though we overran occasionally, this is a good thing! :)
  17. Some presentations had zero introduction. they went right into the data without properly explaining the problem.
  18. Good presentations. For setup seats should not be placed infront of table legs.
  19. 40GE/100GE panel was excellent, needed to be longer. Some research presentations were mystifying and not well presented. Speaker training?
  20. really enjoying the talk by Len Bosack
  21. generally good, had trouble understanding some of the non-native English speakers and that was a big distraction from their presentations, but still good, interesting subjects, etc.
  22. Pretty Good. Why have 3 day session? 2 days should have been enough
  23. Monday's program excellent. Good presentations, good discussion, good participation from community. Tuesday also interesting.
  24. France Telecom R&D session on AS Ranking was great. At least one or two vocal feedback people were too harsh and want every endeavor to be the be all end all analysis solution. This is a great tool to help provide additional education and information to help me make informed decisions about connectivity and peering. I welcome the additional evaluation and data points to help me do my job more effectively. On the 40vs100G panel - I am TIRED of this dialog it's been going on for too long and I couldn't care less about 40G.
  25. General session was very useful. I find others points of views very interesting.
  26. Seemed cramped not enough table seating available.
  27. None
  28. good, enjoyed the mixed presentations. + the lightening talks were very good
  29. Very weak agenda overall. The most interesting topic by far was the 40GE vs 100GE panel.
  30. I liked Monday better than Tuesday The room was too wide, hard to see the screens in the middle Good content
  31. Agenda management could have been better - several people ran over which disrupted the entire schedule.
  32. Limited
  33. Great
  34. Good
  35. Good Sessions, I liked the 4OG/1100G panel
  36. The 10/100 panel was very good. Isenberg was just a mistake
  37. Sad that "research" talk don't get much Comments. We would appreciate if NANOG community could atleast say if we are aligned with short/long term needs
  38. In general very good
  39. Some good talks
  40. Very academis at times
  41. Some very interesting topics
  42. good content this time - Monday was excellent
  43. Only to correct his dated views
  44. Good, Should bring in more industry standards topics
  45. Great topics, somewhat narrow in scope, but I understand the lack of willingness of folks to submit talks
  46. security forum good. would have liked more detail.
  47. Excellent
  48. ok
  49. Difficult to understand non-native english speaking presenters
  50. good
  51. amazed how many people care about getting 100 Gb/s ASAP. Balance of research projects vs. operational content a little skrewed toward reasearch projects particulary enjoyed presentations on Estonian and root server attcks (Arbon & Ultradns) (sp? couldn't read hand writing)
  52. Redback presentation very poor. take questions off line
  53. good and informative
  54. good very excited to see more a research presentation
  55. boring
  56. Agenda was a little weak
  57. Several topics were interesting and useful
  58. very interesting about convergance
  59. ok
  60. nice
  61. in general things started on time great!
  62. seating was just a little tight but chairs were very confortable

Was the Keynote Speaker address of value?

Answered question

79

(skipped this question)

62

  1. Yes. Bill Norton was good. The talk from Ivan Isenberg would be good but not as a keynote talk.
  2. Who invited the keynote for Tuesday? The talk was based on pure political angst, nothing technical offered, and blatanly offenisve to many attendees in the room. Did you see the line at the micropohone to challenge this bafoon?
  3. yes. the "video crisis" is quite appropriate.
  4. Until Ren Provo started hand waving about telco at the mic.
  5. Nope.
  6. Yes
  7. Somewhat of value.
  8. I enjoyed the presentation and the discussion it provoked during the Q7A.
  9. Not really. A bit of a dissappointment. He didnt seem to be up-to-date with the industry.
  10. Some; the arugment was nice. I felt that he didn't have a lot of the background I would expect for that role.
  11. Not really. He was a disgruntled bell head who had dated misconceptions from an era long ago. It's easy to play the telco bash game, but he did not really have any evidence to point to other than public statements. His website also looks of early 1990s ramblings of a man with a bone to pick.
  12. no
  13. no. I wasn't impressed with his oratory, or his understanding of the topic.
  14. A bit too high-level, but interesting nonetheless
  15. The presentation was a nice jumping off point for the rather lively discussion that followed. I found the discussion more interesting than the speaker as the discussion brought out a lot of the actual complexity and showed how much this issue has become sensationalized and the need to return to finding a sane, technically feasible solution.
  16. It was terrible. Speaker (Isenberg) gave erroneous information and was arrogant/dismissive. I hope our registration fees were not used to pay him an honorarium or expenses.
  17. Not really
  18. This one, not so much. In general, yes.
  19. Keynote was very good!
  20. yes
  21. i think it was pretty good. some of the material was a little stale and not appropriate for the audience but the discussion was very good and it is nice for NANOGers to hear perspectives outside our normal world.
  22. Meza, meza. Data was old and outdated, too far removed from the real world to be relevant.
  23. Somewhat.
  24. Could have been better. Len Bozak XKL was host - I bet he'd have been much more interesting keynoter, given his extensive history in the industry.
  25. Keynote was a little lacking. Either more cogent economic arguements or better understanding of carrier economics or both. could have used some coaching
  26. yup
  27. I was not thrilled with the keynote at all. It was a "dated" talk, the speaker seemed out of his element, and I am always bothered when a keynote speaker repeats several times "I dont know as much about this stuff as you guys". ARG! This is interesting subject matter and could have been much better handled.
  28. somewhat. Didn't address real issues
  29. Yes, I liked this type of presentation.
  30. no
  31. Did not attend.
  32. yes
  33. it was okay, but felt a little lightweight
  34. Missed the address
  35. Tuesday's speaker, interesting view, but I do disagree very much with his thoughts as his information.
  36. Absolutely not. Horrible keynote speaker choice, Len Bosack was much more interesting that role towards the end, but this was not scheduled or announced.
  37. Bill Norton's talk was interesting, Isenberg's not so much
  38. Not really. I would have preferred to hear Len Bozak, the CEO of XKL who was after all the meeting sponsor, but was also one of the orginal co-founders of Cisco. Just from a historical perspective, this would have been invaluable.
  39. Very Much
  40. Not Really
  41. A bit preaching to the Choir
  42. Good
  43. zero
  44. Interesting disscussion
  45. Dubious given the audience
  46. Excellent
  47. No, did not like it
  48. No - didn't know what he was talking about
  49. no. it doesn't seem like a good idea to have this person say "Well you guys know way more about this than I do" A more technical topic- or maybe a legal perspective could have been better
  50. Not so much
  51. Yes somewhat
  52. I already filled out the paper survey in Bellevue, but before Len Bosack spoke on Wednesday. His talk and Q&A were fabulous. He should have been the keynote speaker. (I said in the paper survey that the keynote speaker wasn't really very good. Anyone who starts their talk by saying "you guys know more than I do" isn't a good choice.
  53. yes
  54. Just confirmed things that already expected. Didn't discuss anything new. seemed to stir some controversy which is good
  55. NO
  56. I like the idea and this guy was ok. but seemed to much of a pundant
  57. no,althought I understand the intent to spark debate. The guy is 10 years out of the industry. his slides were 5+ years dated
  58. sort of.. I'm prefer another technical presentation
  59. No he was too one sided and his info is out of date
  60. ABSOLUTELY. 10 years outdated hippie rants on why telcos are bad. AWESOME. makes me feel like its 1996 all over again
  61. maybe. It would have been nice to have more up to date informationin the slides argument and basis of the talk
  62. somewhat
  63. Not very muc - opinion without any substance
  64. NO
  65. Thought provoking although not enlightening or educational
  66. The Network neutrality keynote speaker seemed uninformed
  67. David Isenberg isn't current enough
  68. yes
  69. stuck in traffic
  70. no
  71. yes very interesting at a high level
  72. yes
  73. No.
  74. an ok talk about 12 months too late
  75. yes
  76. I thought he was a crackpot.Maybe it was good though for us to see what is out there
  77. very much maybe could have more time
  78. yes
  79. comments were entertaining

Comments on the Tutorials: (Please reference the talks you are commenting about)

Answered question

51

(skipped this question)

90

  1. Great! The BGP tutorial by Phillip Smith was great since it gives information of real "operations" of BGP in the internet and did not focused too much on what the theory is. Anyone can learn the theory but not the "scars" from the "operations" site.
  2. bgp tutorial was quite good
  3. Phillip Smith kicks ass.
  4. The BGP communities tutorial & bgp for service providors tutorial were both great value
  5. I loved all of them and wish there were more.
  6. The Wireshark tutorial presented some good information.
  7. N/A
  8. nope.
  9. did not attend
  10. BGP communities tutorial was interesting, but the lack of IOS examples was disappointing.
  11. They seemed rather remedial, at least for me.
  12. I attended both the BGP tutorial and the BGP Community tutorial. I thought both were very useful and well done. In particular the BGP tutorial was very well organized and presentented in a exceptionally lucid manner. The tutorials alone were well worth my time and money. To be fair I have been away from routing for a few years so it was a very nice refresher as I am stepping back into a network engineer role.
  13. Did not attend
  14. did not attend
  15. Didn't attend any tutorials at this meeting.
  16. ras' & tom's community tutorial was good. needs IOS examples ;)
  17. n/a
  18. BGP Tutorial was good introduction, second half of tutorial gave very practical information that is usually overlooked in training materials.
  19. more of them
  20. BGP Tech tutorials were good. I did not attend wireshark or bgp communities.
  21. --
  22. Tutorials where good
  23. BGP tutorials were much more basic than I expected, but I got what I was looking for (actual practices in the real world rather than "how the documentation tells you to do it, but no one does it).
  24. None
  25. BGP Communities presentation was interesting, and should have been recorded.
  26. Did not attend
  27. Would like to have seen something on IPv6
  28. Communities=check Peering= Check
  29. B&P orientation was great
  30. BGP Tutorial enjoyable - Didn't fall asleep, Philip Smith is comical
  31. N/A
  32. Excellent BGP by Phillip Smith
  33. BGP intro tutorial ( the 2 session one) was great
  34. n/a
  35. N/A
  36. Philip Smith tutorials were useful
  37. they were good
  38. the security BOF could have been better. CALEA is here. What is everyone doing?
  39. BGP is every favor... Brain overload by Wed!:)
  40. Personally, I prefer having the tutorials on sunday PM
  41. BGP. Excellent. Please keep these!! These are I0 1-3 style, can there be 200 level style tutorials as well?
  42. BGP lots of good material - not the best pedagological structure - still assumes a lot of knowledge
  43. BGP - Philip - Awesome
  44. IP security was good IPv6 ULA - great
  45. n/a
  46. peering bof well what can one say about the peering bof - addressing the same old arguments BGP 1st session excellent
  47. I found the BGP communities interesting wish it hadn't conflicted with BGP tools Bof
  48. BGP tools very helpful
  49. N/a
  50. all tutorials were good but BgP techniques for service providers (parts 1 and 2 ) was great
  51. BGP techniques were excellent

Comments on the BoF's: (Please reference the talks you are commenting about)

Answered question

59

(skipped this question)

82

  1. OK...need more...
  2. Security BOF was awesome (obviously biased, I was on the stage)
  3. Ever watch Seinfeld?
  4. Peering BoF was excellent.
  5. All the BGP BGP were appreciated.
  6. ULA (IPv6) BoF was a good idea, but for some reason IPv6 presentations and BoFs just get bogged down with the same people arguing about the same things and it intimidates people who might actually have something useful to say!
  7. nope.
  8. Peering BoF - very good. A good mix of peering, egos, stunting + fronting, rolling + controlling and relevant information as it pertains to operators issues today in the peering arena. Peering BoF should continue - its valuable for new and old alike.
  9. The Peering BOF is always entertaining / useful
  10. ULA BOF was lively and useful, security BOF was a bit spotty but some good stuff.
  11. peering was fun as always
  12. Good; interesting topics (ULAs and peering)
  13. The peering BoF was quite good. I liked the way it was run. It was good to see people being so involved and contrasting points of view being presented. It is valuable to be exposed to the various points of view since the each have value.
  14. >Only attended peering BoF. Format worked well and it was very well attended and organised. The audio in the Lake Washington room was very poor however and speakers would have been considerably better off without it.
  15. peering bof was completely unconflicted, making it too blasted large. small conflicts good, but ahaving three things fighting and one not was ... lame.
  16. ULA BOF was excellent, esp. for an impromptu (no planning) BOF. Also highly (HIGHLY) relevant / timely.
  17. Peering & Security BoF were both quite good.
  18. the bofs were great
  19. Good Peering BoF. Well run, well organised, well moderated. Plenty of open discussion and information sharing.
  20. peering bof seating was cramped. need more notice of the peering personals signup, sorry i missed it. need beer there too, and everyone vacated very soon after the end presumably to the next talk? Maybe make that bof longer please?
  21. Peering is still the most fun.
  22. Very very much enjoyed the Peering BOF
  23. Peering BOF was entertaining
  24. Peering BoF continues to be "good stuff".
  25. the peering BoF could have used a bigger room :)
  26. peering BOG was excellent! Best BOF Ever :-). BGP tools was ok.
  27. Security BoF and Peering BoF excellent -- again good community participation in the discussions, different points of view presented.
  28. Tom and Richard did a great job w/ the BGP Communities BOF and providing useful examples of the common traget platforms. Even having extensively implemented these measures, they definitely covered best security practices and standard planning layouts that I can use and improve my own existing network and standards.
  29. Peering BoF was great. Made the meeting for me.
  30. Peering and ISP SEC bofs where interesting
  31. The peering BOF was more fun than puppies! But more importantly a lot of topics were covered, and it was nice for relative newcomers to get a sense of the issues and concerns of the group.
  32. Peering BoF was not really peering centric, and it seems to be the same folks saying the same things. The BGP tools BoF was interesting.
  33. Peering BOF: thanks for moving things around so that all could attend. good try at seating, need a bit bigger room, but still very useful. Nice to see the summary of last BOF's servey, although this BOF's servey was a bit much for info; maybe if on line I could fill out as some information asked I do not follow.
  34. Peering BOF was excellent, much better than Toronto.
  35. Peering BOF was good Peering BOF needs more chairs We need a few more new speakers in the peering bof I liked the peering introductions scattered throughout the peering bof
  36. Hwaring BOF was really interesting
  37. peering, good forum, i like the mix between agenda and adhoc discussion
  38. BGP and BOF really badly scheduled. we were pushed out of the room too early!
  39. BGP communities for SP's - Great Peering BOF - Great!
  40. Peering BOF 100 popular for room size - should have been in the general session space
  41. Peering BOF - excellent
  42. great tools BOF & excellent peering BOF
  43. BGP peering session - very good - very professional
  44. n/a
  45. peering BOF seating is good. need more chairs- need more time for peering BOF
  46. Enjoyed BGP communites with Tom and Richard. PeeringBOF room was too small
  47. they were good
  48. Be held in the main room (grand ballroom)
  49. security BOF was the entire NANOG highlight:) Biased! I was on the panel
  50. I think the BOF's are great
  51. peering = it was nice and in touch with reality
  52. peering as an observer, was very interesting
  53. peering - great
  54. peering BOF was good
  55. BoF's needs more space
  56. n/a
  57. peering Gop is perhaps too often or too long
  58. BGP tools and ISP security Bofs were informative - IPv6 talk was entertaining and informative
  59. peering bof was nice

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question

50

(skipped this question)

91

  1. You mean the squirmfest?
  2. perhaps having it jammed between the peering BoF & Microsoft drinks kept attendance down
  3. Good so far....I am at it right now.
  4. n/a
  5. nope.
  6. schedule before the peering BoF next time, or enforce ending times. community meeting only works when attendance is high.
  7. it wasn't well attended, but I appreciated the transparency.
  8. Didn't attend
  9. Did not attend.
  10. Good, but a shame the attendance was not higher.
  11. too small to be in the ballroom.
  12. Scheduling change didn't work out for the attendees, I think. Keep the Community Meeting on Sunday night. If we all know it will be Sunday night every NANOG, attendance will be consistent and predictable.
  13. Did not attend
  14. did not attend
  15. Don't put it in competition with dinner. Provide beer and pizza to help break the ice ;).
  16. SUNDAY NIGHT. Make sponsors work around the meeting, not replace the meeting.
  17. Did not attend.
  18. Everyone was tired, was quite dull, probably poor timing. Needs beer & snacks to liven up.
  19. poor attendance. need a sexy topic announced in advance.
  20. Very good, nice to hear about money, plans, mailing list stuff, counts, PC and SC stuff, etc. Good presentations.
  21. Participation should be after newcomer meeting or at least a different time slot. Provide some food even if it is just rudimentary -- or some type of giveaway. Room layout should be less formal. General Session room was really not conducive to good discussion. If done before the rest of the NANOG meetings, you can put in a quick summary of community meeting discussion in the program.
  22. Did not attend
  23. did not attend.
  24. None
  25. Horrible timing, poor attendance, should have been held after the newcomers meeting
  26. Too big of a room, kinda dull Could have been done in the open meeting rooms
  27. Should have been held in a smaller room; this would have been more conducive to open discussion. May have been more well attended if it had been held on Sunday right after the newcomer's thing. Perhaps a more "user friendly" moderator chould have run the newcomer's - Randy can definitely intimidate some people!
  28. N/A
  29. very useful in understanding the intervals of NANOG like the transparency
  30. N/A
  31. Did not attend
  32. N/A
  33. N/A
  34. n/a ( I wanted to attend but needed to deal with work issue)
  35. Dull
  36. Under attended due to dinner/hosted events that late in the day
  37. ood
  38. poorly attended - switch back to Sunday nights
  39. Woefully disappointed on turn out. My expectation set at Newcommers meeting, was this was the one session to be at ( which I was) AND that this was where all the good debate was during open mike. I found many very opionated people which was great, get them infront of the microphones so we could talk
  40. I think that its easier for people to want a participators organization than it is for them to actually participate... Personally I found the meeting boring but I never complained about merit
  41. Not at dinner time after a full day. Food, alcohol, and interesting topics are good motivators but altering the time maybe cheaper then introducing food or alcohol.
  42. Not enough attendees
  43. seemed to go well - more sparsely attended than I expected
  44. wrong time, not enough people attended
  45. very badle attended. Not tightly chaired enough. didn't end outline. a maling list can be run as a democracy
  46. >n/a
  47. n/a
  48. financials could be released online rather than presented each time
  49. n/a
  50. as with the mailing lists disscussed it went rather long

Schedule comments:

Answered question

46

(skipped this question)

95

  1. the newcomers meeting was great on the Sunday night.
  2. Overall, the worst NANOG ever.
  3. Schedule was fine.
  4. n/a
  5. schedule was fine.
  6. need a little q&a time with the lightening talks
  7. I wish I had been able to go to the wireshark talk and the communities tutorial and the peering BoF, but I can't as yet be in multiple places simutaneously in any effective manner. This is not a complaint, more of a positive comment on the quality of the offerings.
  8. Please go back to the old schedule with tutorials on Sundays and Monday-Tuesday for general sessions. "new" format means an extra day away from home with no gain for those of us who don't want to attend tutorials... schedule them on a separate day so that non-newbies don't have to be around for them.
  9. overall good, solid topics.
  10. The last minute change placing the BGP Tools BOF and the BGP Communities Tutorial at the same time was unfortunate.
  11. didnt release agenda soon enough - please try and release it earlier whenever possible.
  12. Worked well
  13. still dont like the 2.5 day schedule. please bring back the 2 day schedule
  14. Would have been nice if BGP community and BGP tools sessions did not overlap.
  15. Community Meeting timing.
  16. I really like the schedule format!
  17. SChedule was good overall. I wish the schedule could have been maintained time-wise, but understand that it is more important to allow for extra questions than it is to cut off people who are interested in a subject matter.
  18. Should be done by tuesday
  19. I'd prefer the old 1 and 1/2 day schedule better. Three days with some downtime is a bit much
  20. Liked the schedule mix of BOF's and general sessions.
  21. I much prefer this schedule to the older format from a couple of years ago.
  22. None
  23. not bad, I would try to hold Peering BOF to the second night with no other stuff there as with the format followed it was very useful. Previous nanogs, with everyone presenting a lot of larger providers would just skip it, but most seemed to attend, so good job.
  24. Ditch the Monday-Wednesday format please
  25. Keep the parties - good fun
  26. I prefer the old schedule with tutorials on Sunday and bofs in the evening. Extending until mid-day Wednesday basically wastes a whole day for me.
  27. checkk
  28. great
  29. Works
  30. Well scheduled
  31. Newcommers should be followed with on Sunday- Newcommers and comments should not clash with dinner
  32. Thanks you for moving the BGP community tools
  33. Add more tutorials in the morning
  34. wish updates were sent to all the TV screens in the common areas. Although I did use the public laptop to get to it a few times a day
  35. I would have appreciated a little more "meat" I think tutorials on sunday and BOF's in the evening worked just fine, and make room for a lot more presentations
  36. More tutorials, possibly in a parallel track (s)?
  37. Move newcommers and community meeting to one slot
  38. tutorials on sunday afternoon would have been good
  39. Don't much like evening events (general Meetings) I think 2 NANOG's/ year would be enough
  40. schedule community meeting on 1st wrong after 1st session
  41. good format
  42. like flash talks in small groups
  43. BGP conflicts with tutorial Bof
  44. Three day schedule is too long - three evenings in Bellevue is a lot of time and expense - bring back the two day schedule
  45. good mix of pratical and reasearch talks
  46. good

What did you like/not like about the meeting venue?

Answered question

81

(skipped this question)

60

  1. I like the format and contents: focused on the internet operations worldwide.
  2. Great hotel and location.
  3. Too far from airport.
  4. It was a GREAT venue! I liked the layout. I liked the location.
  5. was a bit cold on the Tuesday
  6. Liked everything
  7. >NA
  8. One of the best venues ever. Hotel staff is unbelievably excellent. Good move on getting lots of sponsors so that the food was above par. Do that again. :)
  9. Very accessible to rooms.
  10. It was well laid out and with the break area immediately outside the general area provided a great place for the side conversations. There could have been a few more table to allow people to stand and eat but it was not a major problem.
  11. Liked: - nice hotel - good food at bfast/breaks etc Didnt like: - Hellevue - Distance (& cab fare!) to Seattle
  12. I was pleased with how the food worked out. Venue was awesome. Hallways a little thin, but not bad.
  13. I really liked the Westin, great hotel
  14. food was great
  15. it was in bellevue. seattle would have been better
  16. It was local, which was good, but Bellevue's traffic is a lot worse than Seattle's... The foyer was a little cramped when everyone was out there for breaks and beer & gear.
  17. I am local and it was slightly annoying to pay $14/day for parking. But that is more of an issue with Bellevue than anything. (Can you tell I'm a Seattle resident, not a resident of the east side?)
  18. Bellevue is a suburban wasteland. If we visit the Northwest again, please go back to downtown Seattle - it was far more interesting with much better choices for breaks/lunches/dinners.
  19. Good breakfast, breaks and beer n gear. Near everything that was needed. Fairly good connectivity.
  20. Hotel layout was odd; prefer the social/bar zone to be in the way or in the line of sight of the entryways to make for good lobby-socializing. no room for late checkouts on friday.
  21. superb meeting venue - in my ~12 NANOGs, possibly my #1 venue. loved the rooms, loved the public spaces, and the hotel staff were, without exception, friendly, cordial, and superbly helpful.
  22. Felt a little crowded - table spacing would have been nice to be a little more between rows
  23. i liked the venue quite a lot
  24. We seem to have gone from the long narrow room of Toronto, to the wide shallow room of Seattle. I think some people didn't like how wide this room was - though I'm sure we have had rooms that have been similarly wider. The venue did not have (large) enough men's lavatories on the meeting floor to cope with a conference primarily attended by guys - yet there were two women's restrooms on the same floor. The hotel's concept of "continental breakfast" was a little curious. To me, "continental breakfast" = "coffee and croissants", though the cheese selection was nice. However, I generally liked the hotel, and the staff were pleasant enough. The location was good in the sense that there were plenty of choices for lunch and dinner, and they were all within walking distance. Coping with hoardes of hungry and thirsty NANOG attendees didn't seem to be much of a problem.
  25. >not enough comfy chairs to go around. and why was the ballroom closed off, thus limiting the seating availability?
  26. the bar
  27. Excellent facility choice. The Bellevue Westin is/was very comfortable and accomodating.
  28. Excessive airconditioning, especially when outdoors changed from hot on Sunday to cold on Wednesday.
  29. hallways are narrow other than that
  30. Convenient access, good parking
  31. I enjoyed the ability to reach various nearby establishments
  32. I liked the meeting venue. It was a little hot a couple times but if that is the worst thing I can say than that is pretty good :-). Easy to get to, lots of room, power, food was good, beer and gear was good. Really liked all the ammenities/etc.
  33. Liked that is was walking distance to shopping/food/entertainment, also enough hotels in area to service meeting. Beer N Gear in foyer was a bit tight/crowded.
  34. Venue was fantastic.
  35. Bellevue is really hard to get to early in the morning from Tacama. If you have the venue in Seattle there are more ways to get to the city. When are you guys planning on having NANOG in Vegas or disneyworld?
  36. Did not like that the Internet went down.
  37. There was not a centralized lobby and bar area that made it easy to track down other participants outside of the meeting hours.
  38. The location was good, near shopping and food, no need to travel.
  39. Venue is fine, good location to hotels, food.. Connectiviy seemed a bit slow at time, but over nice job that there were enough wireless and wired connections.
  40. Good choice of locations, lots of food and things to do nearby.
  41. Loved the food, the hotel spread was top class the breaks were done well - loved the hallway for conversations liked the peering bof meeting circle seating but the posts in the room were problematic
  42. Hotel was fantastic! Beautiful, bright, well designed, clean, great service, excellent breakfasts and breaks, very helpful staff, nice bar. Liked the location; within walking distance of so many restaurants, etc. The main ballroom was a bit too small to accomodate everyone comfortably.
  43. great overall - now, as a first time comer to this area, I'd have prefered it directly in downtown seattle than in bellevue
  44. Was good
  45. walking distance to food stores, ect. I liked Tronoto for that too
  46. Liked having paper survey to fill out Best food ever at NANOG Loved the breakfast food
  47. The Westin is good, More common area seating clustered in a collaborative way
  48. bellvue is not especially well connected
  49. Microsoft Sponsored two nights at pool hall - amazing! do it again free internet Hayatt Thanks
  50. Easily Transit - accessible
  51. Not many places around to hang out in the evenings
  52. You should have soft pretzels
  53. Good venue no complaints
  54. Westin ran out of NANOG rooms quickly, Hyatt was very nice. Lots of nearby resturants and things to do
  55. Great food - Good hallways for socializing
  56. Loved hotel beds at the Westin. Connectivity was superb in the room
  57. Very nice venue. Good Food. Coming from academia, its a bit pricey
  58. Also, I forgot to say that the breakfast good was great! and healthy.
  59. It was good
  60. tight seating in the main room. The hotel itself was nice but a little expensive
  61. wonderful venue - great hotel staff
  62. Need better sinage or a map to room areas
  63. Great Rooms! Great food! Fantastic service! Awesome location! sold out too early - although thanks to merit and Carol for getting more rooms (may 1)
  64. More rooms in the hotel was good. I got approval to come fairly late and stayed in a hotel 5 miles away
  65. ease of access
  66. like eas access. parking. Professional staff. Great Food
  67. Like - community - togetherness of the meeting (well-organized) - topics Did not like - Newbie orientation - parking - directions
  68. cramped
  69. worked fine
  70. Liked that it was close to home
  71. Best venue I have ever been at
  72. nothing not to like - very good hotel, good location, convenience to food and attraction was as good or better than I've ever seen at NANOG
  73. hotel excellent, great food, great tea, best conference ever for availability of tea
  74. lots of tables, good. large/multiple presentation screens. poor-too far apart
  75. Bellevue was boring
  76. nice
  77. Expensive and limited accomodations - seattle was cheaper with more available and more to do
  78. excellent food and beverage excellent resturants nearby good public transit options
  79. meeting room was pleasent. Hotel didn't have obvious congregating spots in the evening. though microsoft party helpes a lot
  80. needed more restrooms

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

Answered question

52

(skipped this question)

89

  1. setup a website where nanog attendees can "request meetings" among themselves. This would facilitate "finding" the person/contact at a given service provider that you would like to meet and discuss some issue. Right now, trying to find a contact you want to talk to is a painful multihop process and best-effort.
  2. Answer support email. I'm still waiting on a response.
  3. More capacity on the webcast side Interaction with remote participants (e.g. via jabber or irc)
  4. The agenda absolutely sucked. Thank the lord the staff are wicked nice, and there are one or two normal people on the PC and SC.
  5. It all seems to have worked well. Kudo's.
  6. The policial infighting present at the orientation could have been done at the Community Session.
  7. Really need to beat up the community to get a better programme. Seating in main room was too cramped, as ever!
  8. dunno
  9. Good venue with a wide variety of food & backup hotels near-by. Good setup for the ballroom (as compared to the Toronto setup).
  10. network was fab
  11. the network was great.
  12. The "new" schedule continues to be inconvenient.
  13. The compressed area for B&G was good due to having agood fflow and not overheating. one large box-room with everyone and gear and food isn't as good. This made for good circulating.
  14. i liked the "weird" congregating area outside the general ballroom. though it was shaped non-traditionally, i think it was good, for reasons I guess I can't explain. It worked great for Beer n Gear - more so than the traditional big, square meeting room.
  15. Nothing
  16. The wireless connectivity has been really nice and stable for the past few meetings. Keep this up!
  17. food was good. beer & gear drink lines too long.
  18. only issue was the community meeting scheduling.
  19. Monday afternoon conflict between BGP Techniques and ISP Security. I wish I could've attended both.
  20. Peering bof seating arrangement worked worked very well.
  21. Beer & Gear location - very well done.
  22. The network was great!
  23. It was good for us that Microsoft hosted a gathering for both Monday and Tuesday nights because it allowed us to congregate and interactive with each other efficiently. Otherwise, people will be forced to go off in different groups and have fewer conversations with different attendees.
  24. As mentioned before, venue was good, and logistics involved I think were well handled. BOF and tutorials were good. Keynote needs a lot of work. There are more interesting people with more interesting opinions out there. Kudos to the networking people. Awesome job, very happy with wireless net and connectivity back to home base.
  25. Network response and availability was the best ever - EXCELLENT JOB!!!
  26. The network worked well.
  27. keep peering bof at a nicely segmented time as it was moved to for this one. :)
  28. Don't take transit from mzima next time please, the Verio 10GE was just fine and attempting to show off only results in instability.
  29. better av for the peering bof - mikes kept cutting in and out peering bof had just about the only humor of nanog - nanog needs more humor
  30. The agenda needs to be published well in advance for travel planning purposes. Too many last minute agenda changes and adjustments some due to politics, some due to agenda mismanagement. Like the hallway monitors broadcasting the live presentations inside the meeting room. Liked the hosted socials by Microsoft- would be nice to have these at all meetings! Can we get long sleeve nanog T-shirts for a change? Tie-dye would be cool...
  31. Do we have enough people traveling that United Airlines (or someone else) would offer discount rates? United's Specialized Meeting Reservations Center can be reached at  1-800-521-4041. -Louie
  32. Harder range of topics
  33. Beer and gear worked great. Saw great gear and gret social event
  34. Menu?
  35. what about scoring/ranking for each talk on the website?
  36. wireless was good
  37. I liked how there was a range of stuff to appeal to beginners all the way to people like Randy Bush
  38. Less academic
  39. More BOF time Peering BOF needs more mic's
  40. Local hosts/1X operator encouraged smaller local networks to participate. Nice new Mix.
  41. Add more technical talk. Also have presenter give basic idea about the problem
  42. I enjoyed the beer and gear. There were more vendors present than the last meeting I attended. Is it possible to increase the number of vendors?
  43. Wifi was better than any other confernce I've attended. Community meeting needs EVERY attendee. Make it the lead in to Beer/Gear or a Keynote
  44. See 16 and move the community meeting
  45. more space
  46. more hotel rooms at conf hotel
  47. network worked very well
  48. overall, well done. network works
  49. DOUBLE SIDED BADGES
  50. schedule even if three day could be more dense
  51. through topics and response time measurment tools/services
  52. slides on presentations should be available online when presentation is done

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

Answered question

47

(skipped this question)

94

  1. It would be fun, and educational, to have a list of awards during the beer and gear time such as: "top three problems in the internet", "The nicest carrier in the internet", ...something like that...
  2. there isn't much out of the box thinking about network/security monitoring. too much "pile up tons of netflow data" and lack of sharing in terms of doing anything with it. plus there is the rather classic problem of monitoring is second place behind making things work (of course).
  3. The PC needs to enlist in the Ted Seely school of work ethic and get off their asses and go get some presenters. Do something, or get out of the way.
  4. IPv6
  5. Cory Doctorow presents well for keynotes. I listened to him at LISA'06 in DC. Topics that'd be good would be stuff on the practical implementation of IPv6.
  6. More P2MP MPLS capabilities. How people are addressing routing scaling issues.
  7. v4 to v6 transition issues,
  8. i'd like to see more practical v6 deployment stories
  9. practical ipv6 deployment experience
  10. Continued v6. Calea deadlines have already passed; only interesting if the feds will come and tell us what enforcement teeth will be involved, or if someone can provide real lessons-learned. Gaming companies? we've had some video but they have heavy RTT interactive traffic of interest. More video.
  11. ipv6, ipv6, ipv6
  12. More on IPv6 and what it's change in state in the production networks is
  13. Traffic engineering and network scaling tricks to cope with pipes not being wide enough - a practical follow-up to the 100G fiasco.
  14. I would like to see vendor and tools demoed on the nanog network. Show "live" demos of the research being done. Perhaps have a "show n' tell" session where people can show of what they've presented and allow for more discussion.
  15. not yet, but I might later.... :)
  16. More diversity in subject matter. I think a a good mix of BGP, fiber/highcap/ DNS, security, LAN expansion, political stuff, CALEA, IPV6, monitoring, real-world cases, etc is the perfect meeting subjects.
  17. Ipv6 topics and more network topological data
  18. IPv6 topics will probably be relevant -- a joint discussion with ARIN/NANOG would be good at Fall meeting. I was also thinking that it might be interesting to find out from the operator community what types of problems/tools they would like to see from the academic/research realm, and what "features" we would like to see in hardware/software from vendor community.
  19. Like a good mix of operations and R&D. Migrations are most helpful, IGP/EGP/MPLS/platform.
  20. S-BGP, Fiber optics
  21. Infrastructure protection/hardening, possibly a "Whats new in BGP/OSPF/LDP"
  22. I'd like to see more operational tools talks and best practices. I didn't get that from the BGP tools BOF and it's what I was hoping for.
  23. IPv6 - sounds like it's beaten, but looking at the full suit, including mail, are all things enabled. 4byte ASN's - review of who can support and or time lines for support, eg. cisco,juniper,alcatel, foundry, extreme, force10, etc.
  24. Better content please
  25. more mix of business and technical
  26. Anything on IPv6 Liked the idea of keynote speaker; would be great to get well known Internet gurus for keynotes.
  27. More iece stuff, Wifi voip? outdoor wireless?
  28. I would have enjoyed listening more to the Yahoo guy and how they have things set up currently
  29. more introduction stuff
  30. Vint Cerf. Mobile phone.Satellite network design
  31. more on IPv6
  32. CALEA - Limit presentations by vendors. More real world examples from operators. The academic presentations hold no current real value
  33. More security presos outside of the BOF. Maybe more public policy debate, invite an FCC member
  34. IPv6 is good, multi-cast, video all good, Maybe even CDNS (??survey copied from paper copy, very poor hand writing) VOIP, ect.
  35. More topic on the CDN
  36. Keep BGP more BGP!
  37. IPv6 tutorials
  38. More on our regulatory environment
  39. Lets get some lawyers in
  40. review of business models car operators - how to tansition to profitable sustainable internet while keeping openess to new applications martin Gedded, Telco 2.0/ telecosm
  41. ask challenger/solution
  42. something about the future of the internet and the economical sustainability of the free model
  43. non-university speakers
  44. NO
  45. more architure /engineering, V6 , more operational focus
  46. speakers - scott bradner more "great debates" format - Like IPv6 BoF
  47. who knows - 802. 1ah and PBT
  48. CALEA molecular sequence reduction circut emulation over packet IMS

Suggestions/volunteers for future NANOG Hosts: (The folks who work with Merit to locate hotel, provide connectivity, build hotel network, and staff meeting)

Answered question

17

(skipped this question)

124

  1. Let me see if I can build a clue list and I'll get back to you. This will be hard.
  2. Go beat up Level3!!! Lots of venues there that could do this around Broomfield.
  3. Akamai - they make money off a lot of NANOG networks & their customers. they wouldn't exist witthout the rest of the net. Comcast. Limelight.
  4. >Equinix, again, one of these days
  5. I think lots of BW is good. This year was the first year I could actually see what I was typing on my remote machines all day long. So keep up the good BW. Nice/clean/newer hotels are nice as well. Good AV, etc. I really think this nanog was best yet in terms of the rooms/etc.
  6. Working on it.
  7. Better video recording/streaming
  8. We threw out hat in ring - Uninvited layer :)
  9. Happy with whatever
  10. Akomoi - Cambridge in October 2008
  11. None
  12. Free in room internet access
  13. No more Kornet apologists. more security detail, Bonet detection, scaling IDS to large networks
  14. none
  15. limelight
  16. no
  17. ensure hotel has sufficient lobby/public gathering areas

Suggestions/volunteers for future NANOG Sponsors: (The folks who provide monetary support in exchange for exhibit area and community recognition)

Answered question

14

(skipped this question)

127

  1. Ask Cachelogic! http://www.cachelogic.com/
  2. WDM equipment providers: MRV, Wave2Wave, Cube Optics
  3. Better demos in the booths. Some of the sponsors actually had working equipment, but companies like Juniper had a guy handing out swag... Hmmm, thanks for the swag but couldn't J even had a box with blinking lights?
  4. Working on it.
  5. not sure
  6. How come we have never done anything in NY?
  7. Apple - iPhone - Nokia-would love to learn more about the network joel Jaeggli mentioned at the close of the Keynote
  8. none
  9. Increase the number but keep them in the lobby
  10. none
  11. n/a
  12. no
  13. more, Thanks!
  14. Huawei, Ellatoya, Google

19. Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question

84

(skipped this question)

57

  1. Professional relationships. Meeting new people. and getting a "bigger picture" of what is going on in the internet operator's mind...All in a relaxed enviroment...
  2. Local meeting right after NANOG.
  3. to see what is going on in the NANOG community.
  4. To learn something, but that was a mistake.
  5. Networking with peers.
  6. Hallway meetings & Peering BoF primarily
  7. Networking
  8. For experience exposure to Merit and other large network operators.
  9. Learn stuff, meet people.
  10. It is mostly for the face-to-face time with other network operators and vendors.
  11. >Meet folks!
  12. To stay current, to network, to get away, to get value out of it.
  13. The people. The belief that I'll see a presentation that would enlighten me to something new that I never would have found otherwise.
  14. Information about interesting topics as well as networking with the people that attend
  15. technical content, hallway meetings
  16. looking to understand more of what the providers are dealing with. It makes my role as an enterprise architect a little easier.
  17. Peering coordination, education
  18. This time it was a crime of opportunity, I live in Seattle. I don't know if I will have funding for future NANOGs, but would definitely consider attending if possible. I expect as I get integrated into the community NANOG will be an opportunity to catch up with friends and colleagues in the community.
  19. To network with network architects and peering coordinators.
  20. To meet with customers/colleagues in the SP industry.
  21. >To meet people.
  22. Interesting talks. Interesting people.
  23. networking, networking, networking (and I'm not talking about the kind with cables and routers)
  24. Network with other network providers and interesting presentations
  25. its my peeps
  26. To meet new people, and network with existing contacts. Spend time with industry peers and my own customers. Hallway conversations are vital, NANOG is not just about sitting in talks, and I think this balance has improved significantly over the past couple of years.
  27. i have been asking myself the same question.
  28. Social
  29. I'm a network engineer for a Wireless ISP and need to know what's going on in the Internet and provider community.
  30. To make new contacts and to learn.
  31. Speaker, meeting colleagues, making new contacts, some presentations might be interesting.
  32. Human networking (not Cisco), keeping up on technology, education
  33. Primarily to network with customers, potential customers, partners, competitors, and vendors.
  34. to make tech contacts, learn stuff, socialize, meet peers in person, learn more stuff, see state of the art talks, etc.
  35. Keep up-to-date on techniques, tools, best practices. Interface with other operators, meet peers. etc.
  36. Keep up to date on current operational issues and challenges. Finding and maintaining peering and network operations contacts.
  37. local
  38. To stay up to date on current methods and practices.
  39. To pick up some informational tidbits and see how/what other operators are doing and to meet people face to face that I have only talked to or emailed.
  40. sessions and to meet with peers. I didn't do a very good job of that. Events where I've had better success are events with an extensive, small targeted BOF session track (or evening BOFS). Have you considered encouraging anything like that?
  41. It's a useful networking venue, and the talks/tutorials are generally useful.
  42. contact others in the community, if I attend I can focus on what is important going on.
  43. If not for the Hallway Track, I wouldn't. The agenda should be approved accordingly.
  44. I like the nanog forum, the people, the community is almost family now
  45. Mostly for the networking opportunities
  46. To get inspired by new directors
  47. Interest and Learning of the latest community
  48. Gear,Social, Peering, Gain ideas for use back at UL
  49. Learn/Peer
  50. Talk with other engineers/Ect. figure out how they do things
  51. networking
  52. Trying to get feedback for ISP community on research tool (l-BGP) and establigh contacts. Relations between ISP and audiences is very important to us
  53. Keep abrest of industry. Exchange Ideas. Network!
  54. to find out what are the real problems
  55. Our company was sending a few Network engineers, but 3 of us SA/dev guys wanted to see what we could get out of it to
  56. Learn more. Network with people in the industry
  57. To meet up with people is the main reason - i came to meet with NSRC jocks. Some techs are useful to me and my company.
  58. People networking Peering BOF - advance to intrest with peers For the sunny weather:)
  59. Peering/Network planning
  60. Feedback on research, and making contacts
  61. In town and provide use/all information
  62. Improve peering. Learn new "techniques" to improve our network. Come up with ideas for new products and services.
  63. 75% - build industry relationships (put faces to e-mail names) 25% - training - information sponging to widen breadth of knowledge
  64. Good presentations chance to interact with other network folks
  65. Gain more exposure to current trends and to the ISP community in general
  66. High value of presentation information - social networking
  67. First time. Recommended by co-workers
  68. To learn more about the conference itself and to learn more about BGP
  69. technical info and contacts
  70. peer learning
  71. One of the few meetings/conf I attended that I get practical info from. Other is joint techs
  72. Keep in touch with collegues. Stay informed of latest innovation. See the vendors
  73. To meet other attendees, to listen to operators and customer requirements
  74. To learn
  75. share ideas, just latest research
  76. to interchange experiences with people involved in the same responsibilites than me
  77. private meeting
  78. Relevance to work!
  79. Prof contacts, peering and to find out how other providers are building their networks
  80. operational relevance, netowrking, hallway conversations
  81. To stay current with network providers issues/challenges/best practices and with internet technologies and techniques
  82. to meet with peers and to hear about issues affecting the industry
  83. Experice change, technology update
  84. need up-to-date info on how people do things

Back to the NANOG 40 main page.

 

 

^ Back to Top