^ Top

NANOG 43 Surveys Results

 

NANOG 43 Survey Results

Brooklyn, New York (June 1-4, 2008)

How did you attend NANOG?

Response Percent (Response Total)

in person in Brooklyn

93.0% (93)

via Web - Real Media

3.0% (3)

via Web - MPEG2 Multicast

2.0% (2)

via Web - Windows Media

5.0% (5)

Answered question

100

(skipped this question)

1

Is this your first time attending NANOG?

Yes

34.0% (34)

No

66.0% (66)

If you answered "No" please tell us how this NANOG compares to previous meetings.

1. The webcast did not work well, broke most of the time
2. I didn't like the screwy lunch and end times
3. Similar, perhaps a bit better.
4. It compared well. Monday afternoon dragged a bit.
5. not as good.
6. About the same.
7. Average, a few redundant presentations from previous NANOGs
8. It was disappointing and lacking in technical depth. The keynote, while including occasionally-amusing anecdotes, has virtually no technical content. Most of the other presentations were far too elementary in nature.
9. Okay. Nice venue. It's good to have some places to go in the evenings and NYC certainly has plenty of those.
10. Better organized, New York is always a great location, direct flights, easy accesss to Manhattan, metro, restaurants etc.
11. About the same
12. NANOG43 was great, but I get the feeling that NANOG42 (San Jose) was bigger. More people, more animation. This is of course totally subjective.
13. Better than most
14. not sure
15. Best in years! NY was wonderful. The network was great. Let's come back
16. about the same
17. Great! -
18. above average venue and talks; was a skeptic to Brooklyn location at first, but now fully approve
19. Very good content.
20. The later start time is great!
21. Good
22. Good except Bill Norton not doing the Peering BOF.
23. About the same, i.e., informative and fun.
24. about the same
25. Seemed to have more rehashing of stuff I've heard before.
26. About the same
27. Above average
28. This is good. Location is great. Content was very good.
29. great
30. Good conent, suboptimal location, limited hallway table space, limited soda availability except during scheduled beraks
31. Keynote speaker was very good
32. average
33. good
34. very informative, good organization
35. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say 2. This is almost better than the Valentines Day Massacre, but not nearly as good as San Jose, San Francisco, or Reston.
36. I felt that the level of the technical content has dropped significantly. I also felt that many of the presentations (esp. the NA IXP BOF) were basically sales presentations.
37. Better atmosphere
38. I have only been to the San Jose meeting preceeding this one. I found the San Jose meeting slightly more informative with deep operational info, but both have been very good.
39. Content is better than usual.
40. so far not as good. I like more audience interaction.
41. The topics covered seem more narrow than I remember. I have been coming for 8 years.
42. Great program !
43. eh
44. great
45. Better.
46. test 2

Answered question

100

(skipped this question)

1

Were the dates for NANOG43 acceptable to you?

Yes

92.9% (92)

No

7.1% (7)

If you answered "No" please tell us why

 

1. mid June would have been much better for me (I could have attended in person)
2. Prefer for NANOG's to start on Monday
3. Later in June would have been much better professionally and personally.
4. the whole starting on sunday thing is really weird and an inconvenience - my weeks are spent working or being around this stuff - saturday and sunday i really like to relax and spend time with family and stay away from technology
5. AFNOG conflict prevented co-worker (Joe Abley!) and other persons-of-interest (Randy Bush) from attending. Takes the fun out of it...
6. Early June is busy with school endings.
7. the scheduling against afnog/afrinic was an inexcusable disaster which could have been trivially avoided. we should be ashamed.
8. test 3

Answered question

99

(skipped this question)

2

Overall, was this NANOG useful to you?

Very Useful

21.0% (21)

Useful

69.0% (69)

No Opinion

4.0% (4)

Not Very Useful

6.0% (6)

Useless

0% (0)

Answered question

100

(skipped this question)

1

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

Yes

84.0% (84)

No

3.0% (3)

No Opinion

13.0% (13)

Answered question

100

(skipped this question)

1

For the next NANOG meeting, which of the following start times most suits your needs?

8:00am

7.1% (7)

8:30am

15.2% (15)

9:00am

21.2% (21)

9:30am

50.5% (50)

10:00am

14.1% (14)

Answered question

99

(skipped this question)

2

Did you utilize the public laptops and printer near registration?

Yes

14.3% (14)

No

85.7% (84)

Answered question

98

(skipped this question)

3

Comments on the Community Meeting:

Answered question

42

(skipped this question)

59

1. Somewhat more tame, granted it was a little heavy on the attack the SC and a little light on community concerns in general
2. no comments
3. Much tamer, thankfully, but it did expose that the SC is hiding the bad news, and that's not good.
4. Where was the fist-fight? Oh, right, I don't think there were any of the usual bi-polar suspects in the room, ready to start arguments.
5. did not attend
6. My first, was worthwhile. A good way to start to become acclimated to the environment.
7. Informative, provided a good heads up to the community and provided a good amount of raw data of the community happenings
8. sort of boring but interesting to get an idea how the organization works
9. Pretty tame compared to previous ones I've attended. But informative.
10. OK
11. I found it lacked some super-quick background on NANOG organisation for when you are a nearly-newcommer, otherwise pretty neat.
12. This meeting reminded me of a family holiday dinner. Lots of very interested people speaking up on topics they found interesting and important, but as a newcomer much of the back story was lost to me.
13. Dragged on
14. Boring
15. As a newbie, there seemed to be a lot of internal wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
16. Too long
17. Did not attend
18. Usefull session - its good to meet the people in person when discussing nanog issues
19. very one-sided wrt MLC collapse. should have had Pilosoft, Hannigan, Yocum, et al as speakers to let us know what *really* happened and we as community members can do to prevent similar productivity sinkholes.
20. didn't attend
21. didn't attend
22. we need to stop complaining about serving on the committees. it is nothing to aggrandize, but we're disincenting participation.
23. n/a
24. mildly amusing. people tended to repeat themselves over and over and over. plus there was some redunancy, redundancy, and beating of deceased equines, and people talking to hear themselves talk. (I am guilty of that plenty, but I did not do it at this meeting :-)
25. Nanog is all about community, the more community orientated we are, the better our experiences will be, the better we will work together, the better the net will be off.
26. What?
27. No fireworks. Hire more drunks.
28. N/A
29. It ran a little long... but the content seemed helpful
30. was not able to attend. sunday was the travel day so missed all the topics on sunday. It's unreasonable to expect folks to travel from the west coast on Saturday to attend Sunday events
31. suggest limiting mailing list topic to 5-10 min
32. I liked the community meeting very much, and was pleased that it was polite but informative.
33. What a joke.
34. It was good, but too long, with people at the mic droning on and on about useless mailing list drivel that I don't care about.
35. It' was great.
36. ran long, missing fireworks, but good, open environment
37. Was very sub-dued. Amazing when Randy and Ted are both absent... :)
38. NA
39. did not attend
40. didn't attend
41. A bit going round the same old circle.
42. test 8

Comments on the Newcomers' Continental Breakfast

Answered question

44

(skipped this question)

57

1. Little space in the building
2. Enjoyed the new format
3. Well attended.
4. Ren did a great job, as always
5. Good, when I got there (was late).
6. did not attend
7. Good. Was nice to hear/see the other newbies, and long-timers, as well as get an idea of who (what orginzations and types) were attending.
8. very good!!
9. Good forum to keep those of us who aren't newcomers but are still relatively new to re-introduce ourselves.
10. Add yogurt (lactose intolerant)
11. Very nice, again a feeling of family with in the NANOG Community,
12. NA
13. Good idea
14. Good but more discussion less round the table intros
15. Didn't know it was a "meeting". I arrived as everyone was leaving - so apparently there was some sort of organized discussion.
16. Perhaps panel on what to expect. Attendee feedback on what they want to learn.
17. Ok
18. no comment
19. missed first part, but what I saw was good
20. missed first part, but what I saw was good
21. Was very cool. Good participation.
22. I think the concept of mentoring/babying newcomers is a bad idea. NANOG committee members encouraging old people to meet new people is annoying. The darwinian process which promotes high quality attendance at NANOG is hindered by manipulating normal social processes.
23. Although I didn't get to attend it, it sounds like a good idea.
24. Was good
25. I MISSED IT!!! Grr. I was in the main room, I didn't know that where I was *wasn't* the breakfast. I managed to socialize anyway, I went in late and met Joe Provo, and that was 'bout it.
26. Came late, but perhaps a more organized approach to help integrate newcomers who want to meet people they have perhaps only communicated with digitally in the past and to meet more old timers. Perhaps nanog should maintain a members gallery -- newcomers would get snapshotted...
27. Too early. All the cool nanogers dont even get back from party with pilo's until after this.
28. N/A
29. enjoyed it. seems worthwhile
30. tasty breads
31. I'm not a newcomer
32. Politics.
33. Didn't wake up in time. Dammit.
34. very helpful for those with failing eyesight/short attention spans more sugar-free cold caffeine
35. It' was great.
36. Good round robin.
37. exciting to see so many old-timers and newcomers mingling. i thought it was largely successful.
38. Food was good. Didn't really see how to network with the Newcomers though.
39. Very good, makes people integrate easily
40. Good chance to meet new people
41. Nice idea
42. didn't attend
43. Great.
44. test 9

Comments on the General Sessions:

Answered question

49

(skipped this question)

52

1. good variety of talks
2. Not many topics as other years
3. Good overall mix of material.
4. too many bgp data analysis tools. <yawn> The NYC peering info was great.
5. Too many talks on BGP tools, especially from grad students where the project may disappear when they get their degrees.
6. Good talk on undersea cables. Getting such experts to attend cannot have been an easy task.
7. Good. Some better than others, but overall worthwhile.
8. Fairly informative, however, presentations shouldn't be rehashed from previous NANOGs
9. See above. Too much tutorial-level material. NANOG always used to be a place where experts got together to discuss hard problems. If it's charter has been changed to be an educational forum, that needs to be made explicit and perhaps a new organization can be created to deal with hard operational problems in the North American networking community.
10. One this about this meeting was that it seemed that many of the presentations were more academically focused rather than operationally focused. As an Engineer in a tier-1, this is partly my fault, I know. However, I think it's becoming increasingly more difficult to get clearance from lawyers to present at NANOG, and academics generally don't have that problem. I'd love to sit and discuss how to actually make IPv6 dual-stack work on my international network on various platforms, but there's no way the legal folks would let me. Not sure how to solve that one!
11. being ive been following nanog for years and always read the presentations, it seems its the same stuff being talked about, with no progress or advances for the msot part - the presentations are being given again and again because of companies who allow idiots to operate and run them and nanog feels the need to keep reiterating the points, which they dont and will never get need BETTER topics for presentations - badly
12. They were well organized, I am glad that were enough connections for laptops in the back. Sessions were not long and they were very informative.
13. Good content. The last several NANOG's are doing a fine job to bring really useful stuff, the PC is doing a knock up job.
14. Can add some other diverse topics in shorter sessions: cooling/rackspace/colocation, spam/email, new processors/servers, etc. Make it more dynamic...
15. Better content than in the past few years, although things have been getting better for the last couple NANOGs
16. Found useful information.
17. mostly ok
18. Its quite interesting from the other side good to hear views of others.
19. Very good
20. AV was excellent was great to be be able to hear and see! The power cord distribution was excellent. Time discipline above average:>
21. More diverse content. Ocen Fiber presentation & Peering Wars cogent very good. So was Rui Zhang's presentation on ART
22. Was okay, cold in the room.
23. good quality overall: subject & contents; some outstanding, eg. Making an AS Route like a Single Node
24. good, loved Jay's presentation
25. r&d track (princeton, etc) was bad. otherwise very good.
26. Useful and interesting. Liked the cable hands-on props.
27. Useful and interesting. Liked the cable hands-on props.
28. Good talks.
29. Very good. The speakers were by and large engaging. Newer/younger speakers should be encouraged strongly to practice more and discouraged from reading directly from their powerpoint notes. I know this is a tall order for a geek, but somehow many people have managed to get over this, and NANOG is a good/easy audience, since, as was noted, most of the listeners are busy paying attention to their laptops during the speeches (I am now!). The submarine cable presos were really informative.
30. more effort to encourage questions and on floor debates -- everyone loves a good flame war, so long as they arent part of it,
31. Generally good. Some of the presentations in the "research" session could have done with a bit of tidying up. I've found some of the material at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/talks/jon-cfip.ppt to be useful in preparing talks.
32. The keynote presentation and undersea cables sessions were great!
33. Pretty good but presenters need to be screened for ability to speak clear proper english.
34. Good - could use a bit more in the way of tables (for laptop users) - they were pretty full, and there were lots of empty chairs (it seemed) in the non-table rows.
35. Making an AS route as a single node was good (Atomic BGP). I'm very pleased to see the academics continuing to be invited and presenting. The undersea cable panel was excellent.
36. Less research talks and more concrete measurement / ISP experience.
37. I liked the under sea cables talk, though one of the speakers apparently thought we were children (a terabit is a trillion bits!!). In all seriousness, if there ar other technologies like undersea cables (that seem somewhat shrouded in mystery, to me at least) coverage at nanog would be cool.
38. enjoyed most, but the three talks on as-path analysis were too much.
39. Good stuff by e.g. Renesys
40. nice selection of topics, well presented
41. I missed most of Monday due to illness, but what I saw was great - the keynote was fun.
42. No comment
43. Well run! To time!
44. Good. I am impressed by how much stuff people know.
45. great mix of presentations. not all were interesting to me, but each seemed to engage a portion of the audience.
46. Starting the Monday session off with Keynote as well as a Cable talk and a Wireless talk seemed a little strange. It seemed a bit light on deep IP content that most folks come to NANOG for. Good to have blocks of the non-IP content, but perhaps not at the very start. It didn't seem to set the tone of NANOG very well.
47. interesting
48. Great
49. test 10

Was the Keynote Speaker address of value?

Answered question

74

(skipped this question)

27

1. best keynote ive seen yet
2. Very good speacher
3. Not as good as others.
4. yes entertaining
5. Yes. Light and fun for the first session of the day, but it had some useful content, as well. (He should have done the rap, not just put it on the screen, though.)
6. Yes. Jay is a humourous speaker that connects well with his audience. Essential for keynotes, as they aren't dry technical presentations.
7. mostly entertainment value
8. Yes, it provided a valuable perspective and just how things are, additionally, it provided something of humour value
9. No.
10. Yes. It's also good to have a 'good speaker' kick off these things as we did here. Something that makes people pay attention to something other than their email is good.
11. awesome!! couldnt have found a better keynote speaker usualy the old executive type ones are boring
12. This speaker was excellent, informative and funny.
13. Yes. I heard some complaints from folks but I think people have some of their own ideas and thoughts on what a keynote was. What Jay presented I thought was a pretty good representation from a NANOG person on how their roles have changed and what they've had to dealt with. Jay is a funny guy and I think the presentation shows that.
14. Interesting
15. Very interesting perspective on the difference between provider/customer.
16. It was fun, a good introduction.
17. Yes, but wish he had talked more about Digg and commercial TV on internet
18. yes, great
19. yes
20. yes
21. yes
22. Certainly. I especially appreciated the humor and levity in the presentation.
23. yes
24. Jay was amazing
25. No
26. Yes, it was enjoyable & gave some historic perspecive
27. yes
28. yes, very. only regret is that jay couldn't have shared his true thoughts on equinix smarthands, etc, in the interests of diplomacy.
29. Yes, but it was a bit clique-ish. The subsequent talks were less insider-biased. The video was great though!
30. Yes, but it was a bit clique-ish. The subsequent talks were less insider-biased. The video was great though!
31. Yes, Jay is great!
32. Yes, great speaker
33. Jay was fantastic.
34. Yes. I really liked the last 10/15 mins of his talk. The earlier part was fun, but little shallow on information/insights.
35. Very entertaining and good to see both sides of the customer/provider relationship.
36. Very nice, I continue to support the Idea of a keynote.
37. Warmed over techie jokes, totally useless, gave me a bad attitude about everything that followed, couldn't have been worse.
38. It was highly entertaining and enlightening; I can't really say it was "of value" in any sense other than that since I can't monetize Jay's experiences.
39. The keynote was very interesting.
40. Yes
41. Yes, very interesting and entertaining
42. Yes. Witty, interesting. Very good.
43. absolutely.
44. Should have been less censored and more real but overall decent.
45. I missed it, sorry
46. Fantastic. Funny.
47. Yes, though I missed a bunch of it, I'm looking forward to the video replay.
48. it was great..
49. yes, very good, way to go!
50. Yes, keynote speaker was excellent.
51. absolute
52. Yes!
53. yes, Jay is an inspiration
54. yes.
55. Nope.
56. yes, I thought it was really interesting and well presented
57. Yes, It was a very good talk.
58. Yes, but not as good as the Amazon one.
59. Awesome! Would love to see more great speakers like Jay. Reminded me of when Peter Cohen changed jobs and opened at the peering BOF. It's particularly interesting when speakers have dramatically changed rolls and understand multiple perspectives.
60. yes. when parrying overheard discussions of topics such as peering, too many examples aren't enough previously, documented evidence of why never to turn to the dark side was difficult to come by video footage nicely crystallized some themes of great cultural import
61. Some of them Yes.
62. Yes very interesting but would prefer some more detail.
63. Yes
64. Really enjoyed.
65. Not at all. I got a few tidbits out of it only.
66. i don't know if it was "of value" but it was funny as hell and entertaining. it was a wonderful way to kick off the conference.
67. Yes! Was very entertaining while at the same time giving a very good intro to Customer Service to a bunch of "Comic Book Guys". I'm not sure it got through to anyone... most folks will go back thinking they have power to turn the Internet off instead of realizing they are integral to their customers businesses and should work with them... no matter how stupid (or malicious) they are.
68. Not great, not enough content. Too much entertainment.
69. Very entertaining and useful perspective too
70. I like the presentation, and his perspectives from both sides of the business
71. Entertaining, to be sure, but didn't really add anything substantial
72. Absolutely! Great idea to have someone high profile who has seen the business from both sides.
73. Not really and I'm glad I'm not his customer with that attitude!
74. test 11

Comments on the Tutorials: (Please reference the tutorial(s) you are commenting on)

Answered question

31

(skipped this question)

70

1. Did not attend any.
2. did not attent
3. Slightly dry.
4. very good - more technical would be better - different subjects/topics would be better
5. More!
6. Being deep into the commercial space, I found of the tutorial a bit too researchy for me, but they were probably right for the folks coming from this part of the industry.
7. Network Measurement valuable - gave me some new tools to investigate.
8. good
9. Prefix filtering - good
10. Sunday afternoon tutorial on Traffic Matrix is simply a repeat of previous talks - not useful at all!
11. ok
12. It would have been nice to have known if the "Tools" presentation slides were going to have been posted. Web page said "Mon-Wed" present. SO I furiovsly tried to scrible urls instead of listening to the tools tutorial.
13. VOIP Peering and ISP Security tutorials were great.
14. VoIP peering: good Measuring tools: good (I would have liked to attend all tutorials ..; good subjects)
15. traffic matrix - intersting network measurement tools - very useful, nice to meet these folks
16. Tools was good, well put together.
17. n/a
18. I came in late to the tutorials on Sunday, so I only got to hear Paul Vixie talk; he's strangely engaging, like watching a car wreck in slow motion, but good instead of damaging.
19. There seems to be a large duplicaton of effort with regards to bgp routing data analysis and lots of it isnt as open source as it should be. nanog should maintain a wheel duplication registry of efforts that have been brought to nanogs attention.
20. N/A
21. not able to attend. see comments above on travel day.
22. Network Measurement Tools- hope to put some of these to the test in the near future. We often find the need to prove bandwidth.
23. Could the tutorials please be video/archived?
24. No comment. Didn't attend. Keep them going.
25. didn't go to any
26. Great. The network measurement tutorial was particularly good as a survey for me as a newcomer.
27. feel free to include more of them
28. no comment
29. NA
30. Having known nothing about VOIP peering, I found this one to be quite informative and useful
31. test 12

Comments on the BoFs: (Please reference the BoF(s) you are commenting on)

Answered question

44

(skipped this question)

57

1. this peering BoF was nothing like the San Jose or WA ones. Perhaps it was a lack of WN or no clear moderator agenda.
2. Peering/Transit BOF needs to be a double-slot or otherwise managed better.
3. peering bof lacked peering personals. too much lecture not enough 2-way. where was bill n?
4. Good security BoF, but a slightly larger slate of speakers would have been better. (No knock on the job Paul did, though.) I liked the new format for the Peering BoF.
5. I only attended North American IXPs and Transit/Peering/Best Practices. Both were good. The transit/peering was most applicable to me and most worthwhile, I enjoyed the discussion. Since I'm new to some of the discussions, the discussions provided me some valuable background.
6. Presentations during the Transit/Peering BOF were by people who lack real expertise (despite thinking themselves "experts") in working for very large networks. They dismiss the business realities of how the interconnection/peering world really works in favor of some small-provider-oriented idealistic view of how the world should work. The result is misinformed (and misinforming) preaching rather than useful information.
7. BoFs seem to be getting worse, purely because audience participation is lacking for legal and social reasons. Some people seem to do lots of speaking and others dont want to get drawn into arguing with them.
8. bofs were broing and repetitive, internet dinosaurs talk about the same thing over and over youtube hijack? great everyone knows , everyones already read the renesys and ripe reports and analyzations about it - NEXT
9. as always the Peering BOF is the best.
10. Transit BOF was a great idea, need to focus on tools for the next one.
11. I found the BoF more lively in the previous NANOG. Subjects were interesting but I feel like it didn't gain momentum in the assistance.
12. Interconnections BoF was very good. I was worried without Bill there it wouldn't go off well, but it did. Although the moderators need to watch the time a bit more.
13. BOF - Transit, Peering, Peering best current practices. Why as Best Current Practices cut so short?! Please control time better. Cut transit session to make it short.
14. ok
15. Didn't go since I didn't see any that had feathers that resembled mine. But thats fine can't expect all topices every meeting.
16. Video Cast
17. North Americans IXPs: good overview; very usefull. Transit: good Peering: good Peering BCP: extremely good; very valuable to know pitfalls before you fall in them.
18. transit/peering: well done. "transit purchasing" twist particularly useful. like the new guard and format, and would like to see future events in a similar manner. only problem was that the stage/ballroom layout wasn't as community-oriented as a "roundtable" -- should revert to that layout if at all feasible.
19. The transit/peering/bcp bof was great, but a little long. Splitting that track up across multiple evening sessions might be better.
20. Bill Norton should be doing the Peering BOF but I don't blame him for not even wanting to in the future, even if invited to. Merit worrying about the legal impact of speakers is a reason for having NANOG stand on its own two feet financially. Further speakers should sign documents taking on legal liability for what they say, not the meeting organizer. Videos of presentations of course are at the discretion of NANOG because once something is posted, the liability transfers to NANOG.
21. Peering bof needs to go back to the more intimate format. Was too dry and lacked entertainment value.
22. The peering / transit BOF was (at the risk of being repetetive), engaging and informative. I'm not doing much in the way of peering or large transit purchases, but I achieved my goal, which was to learn a lot.
23. My idea of small and Paul Gilmore's arent the same.
24. More interaction would be good to see. Not sure how but more interaction with the crowd would be nice.
25. ISP Security BOF was helpful.
26. Transit/peering BOF's were great.
27. Very good. Transit/Peering/BGP communities BoFs.
28. Routing tools and iBGPlay BoF were very good. The RIPE BGP anomaly detection speaker tried to cram entirely too much material into the session. He could have assumed more of his audience and left more material for later digestion. (But, his content was fairly good.)
29. Liked the Security BOF...
30. Peering BOF could have used more time + interactivity. Transit section was interesting. Would be interested in hearing about analysis tools, negotiating techniques, and more about the transit->peering evolution.
31. Peering bof subject on transit not really relevant
32. Nice work.
33. Could the BoFs please be video/archived?
34. Peering BoF was ok, Danny McPherson rocks.
35. IXP BOF was a sales presentation.
36. N American IXP's good, interesting short presentations :)
37. They haven't happened yet but I'm sure they'll be good.
38. this question is somewhat (but not completely) undermined by the timing of the survey's dissemination
39. no comment
40. Security BoF was good. I learned a bit about several different "orgs" that I only had cursory knowledge of previously.
41. Too early
42. none
43. Security BoF very poor although seems that content for this is difficult to come by which given the nature of security is understandably
44. test 13

Did you attempt to connect to the nanog-v6 SSID during the meeting?

Yes

28.3% (26)

No

72.8% (67)

Comments:

1. Interesting. There isn't anything on the v6 internet.
2. couldn't get an IP address. maybe my crappy laptop?
3. No problems once everything got up and running late Sunday, but I use IPv6 a lot and connected to this survey using IPv6 until the link to surveymonkey (who don't run IPv6), so I didn't expect any problems.
4. ...and I'm an IPv6-type person, shame on me!
5. Worked okay. Couldn't connect to ipv6.youtube.com...
6. It didn't work last time, why try it this time?
7. Didn't have any success but the sessions were interesting enough that I didn't spend a lot of time trying to troubleshoot.
8. Good idea to get people to try out ipv6 (if they haven't already done that ;-) Description is too sparse on handout: what's offered (setup), howto; especially what does an ipv6 Internet offer these days (which services are avail). Some searching on wiki referenced (and google) gives some clues. (I could make description in wiki myself I guess ..) It would have been very nice if some people offered help: ipv6 helpdesk ;-) I didn't fully succeed: got no dns response using ipv6 transport (ipv6-addr on handout). (I'm running DragonFly BSD, not windows) I did get ipv6 transport working: communication to ipv6 host in my network worked. But most of the time I didn't get rtadv for ipv6 default route on nanog-v6 net; this worked fine on nanog net (alongside with ipv4, which I used for dns transport). Conclusion: this was my firs practical experience w/ ipv6, but certainly not he last!
9. problematic on my windows vista laptop - I didn't put alot of effort into making it work
10. worked ok; should have a "nanog-v6-a" ssid too though to force macs to 802.11a
11. I wasn't able to reach anything, but it was probably the fault of the systems I was connecting to.
12. I *think* I got it working OK on my winXP box. I can't get pidgin to connect to my various IM networks, and I can't hit my imap servers, so the 6to4 stuff must not be working right... otherwise, it was fun.
13. I couldn't get to the DNS server when I tried so I went back to the regular SSID where IPv6 was available anyway.
14. I think my debian network-manager didnt do something right .... couldnt get anywhere.
15. Srsly who uses v6 other then he.net?!
16. I might still try connecting to see what happens. It worked fine during the last community V6 hour, though.
17. sadly I was busy with some work things and missed out on the v6-lovin.
18. laptop has no ipv6 support
19. Tried, but dns IPv6 address given on the web page was not pingable (nor resolving dns names) when I connected ... (2620:0:CE0:2::42) Switched over to nanog-v6-xp and used the v4 resolver which was working.
20. iPhone doesn't do v6, used v6 over the regular wifi with my laptop though. Good throughput.
21. Worked fine.
22. I validated my v6 connectivity through nanog-a, and I might try nanog-v6 tomorrow.
23. Unfortunately my devices aren't v6-ready, but I'm glad you have this SSID.
24. I did however, use the IPv6 media stream which was solid.
25. not intentionally
26. I have windows XP and was unable to configure it. It coonected but my client xp is not set up right and I am on learning curve. I will try again but it is a barrier to acceptance. We need a mapping of tools. eg if I use ifconfig on windows for v4 what is v6 equivalent. The web site you refer to (civil-tongue) is not good enough.
27. It did not work.
28. test 14

Answered question

92

(skipped this question)

9

What did you like/dislike about the meeting venue?

Answered question

65

(skipped this question)

36

1. Hotel service was lack luster
2. The place was too small
3. EXCELLENT spot - the energy of NYC was a great benefit to the meeting's general feel. Strange breakfast choices, more breakfast food would be better.
4. the breakfast was same Monday and Tuesday. Needs more cookies & sugar in the afternoon.
5. Bad cell phone reception. Great location, otherwise. What was with Marriott and those pillows? I stay at Marriott hotels fairly often and have never had this problem before. (I am complaining to Marriott, too.)
6. Easy to get around thanks to NYC's great public transport system. No dependance on rental cars or taxis.
7. Liked the comfort and facilities. I had to stay off-site, as I didn't book quickly enough and the normal rates were CRAZY expensive! Overall, no complaints. Great to be in the NYC area!
8. The timezone -- it provides for a good chunk of the US - thus reducing jetlag issue(s)
9. Miscommunication about lack of free Internet in hotel rooms led to an unpleasant surprise at check-in. For $239 per night, this really should be a non-issue.
10. It was fine.
11. venue was perfect
12. The meeting venue was great.
13. Nothing to dislike to any great extent.
14. Bar closed at midnight
15. Very nice facility.
16. good
17. meeting rooms too cold
18. Too expensive, hotel
19. Make sure sessions stay within time.
20. Would like more industry trend and challenges topics
21. Loved the neighborhood and access to other things to do. Hate Luxi hotel that have no provisions for recycling and use a lot of disposables for meals.
22. Nothing! Let's come back soon
23. Convenient to multiple subway lines, lot of restaurants and shopping close by.
24. Easy to reach via JFK.
25. I was dispapointed that I didn't get booked into the same hotel as the conference was at - i guess I was too slow registering
26. well selected venue; however the mzima connectivity was sub par. should have gotten something proper instead.
27. If you didn't stay at Marriott, it was horrible. Hotel Blue was in what seemed a pretty dangerous section of town. It was still under construction, and had no restaurant in the hotel or within safe walking distance. All this and the price was really high too! ;-) The taxi fare to the NANOG hotel kept increasing every day too, doubling by the end of the the period. The down side of NYC venue. Comfort Inn was better from what I heard, but still not great. A smaller city venue with more hotels that are reasonably priced is better. Or if in NYC, get more rooms!
28. If you didn't stay at Marriott, it was horrible. Hotel Blue was in what seemed a pretty dangerous section of town. It was still under construction, and had no restaurant in the hotel or within safe walking distance. All this and the price was really high too! ;-) The taxi fare to the NANOG hotel kept increasing every day too, doubling by the end of the the period. The down side of NYC venue. Comfort Inn was better from what I heard, but still not great. A smaller city venue with more hotels that are reasonably priced is better. Or if in NYC, get more rooms!
29. Room layout was good. The hotel's network was annoying,
30. Disliked the cost of the hotel/travel for this location. Not ever attendee comes from companies with plenty of $$$. I don't attend every NANOG anymore because doing so is too costly.
31. Good location with many things within walking distance or subway trip.
32. Brooklyn is fine, but the immediate neighborhood is not great.
33. I live in Brooklyn (go ahead, figure out who I am, I don't really care!) so I couldn't have made justified coming for the first time were it NOT here. I've been to this particular venue many times; it's just fine for me.
34. The foyer area to the ballroom was useful in avoiding the corridor congestion problem.
35. Brooklyn marriot is extremely convenient to me, a brooklyn dweller. I even figured out the fast way through morning traffic, as low as 20 minutes in the car.
36. Good venue. Beer n' Gear was a little cramped.
37. Loved it being in NYC.
38. It was stupid to have it in brooklyn. It should have been in manhattan.
39. Price of rooms!!!
40. Fantastic choice of location. Venue is wonderful. Rooms are excellent. Very well done. Thanks, TelX, ARIN, Merit et alia.
41. room price outside the block was a little steep.
42. was satisfactory
43. Went to Manhattan for dinner every day and lunch some days; many report hotel wound up costing $300-400/night anyway. Would have been much better in Manhattan.
44. There should be a common area for lunch
45. Hotel ran out of space early (rooms went up to $500 a night when I checked, about a week & a half prior) and there weren't any other hotels in the immediate walking vicinity. Would prefer either a) more rooms available to nanog attendees in the hotel, or b) a hotel with other hotels nearby to give options.
46. Expensive. No free Internet either. Booked full way too early.
47. Relatively central. Enjoyed it.
48. the price! The nanog block was too small, and sold out really fast.
49. $500 per night hotel rooms?
50. liked the location didn't like my hotel room
51. It's decent.
52. easy to find & navigate proximity to public transportation
53. I like it overall.
54. location, good connectivity...
55. I liked it.
56. Liked everything very informational.
57. Location was good but expensive. I wouldn't mind someplace cheap like Omaha. Food was excellent. Air conditioning was extreme.
58. loved it. great location, great facility. room rate got too expensive too quickly when the cheap rate ran out. needed more info on good, local restaurants within walking distance.
59. Loved the cold temp... hated it when the complainers won out and it got warmer. Please keep it cool!!! Perhaps having half the room set to a little warmer temp than the other side, and let folks know through some red (warmer) / blue (colder) up lighting would let folks know where to sit. I know it isn't very energy efficient, but who cares... will make for happier people!
60. Venue v good. Hard to complain about it. Good transport - good restaurants etc. easy access to NYC.
61. Meeting room too cold
62. Nice hotel. Lots of places for the "on your own" lunches
63. I thought the meeting venue was as close to perfect as possible. This part of Brooklyn is very nice and it's a short ride away from Manhattan by subway. I like not having to deal with car rentals (especially in this time of high gas prices)
64. Good hotel, although real diet coke should always be present! :D
65. test 15

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

Answered question

38

(skipped this question)

63

1. keep the webcast UP!
2. Please don't do a breakfast where the only bread available is doughnuts.
3. Some of the tables had the power sockets on the table top. Excellent idea, whoever did that. This should be done for all of the tables where power is provided at future meetings. As much as engineers are used to crawling around on the floor wrangling cables, it's not very dignified to have to do it in a meeting.
4. Would be good to be able to time shift nanog, eg make presentation streaming available for viewing immediately following their conclusion rather than some time in the future. Nanog was held between midnight and 8am my local time this time around which makes it hard to watch the streaming live.
5. Speakers were good, usually to the point and did not ramble too much. Would be nice to have more speakers - more times to chose between different presentation topics.
6. Worked well: time was good, timezone was good as well Improvements: Less rehashed topics and redundant topics during sessions, audio problems during video streams
7. The wireless network worked better than others in recent memory. Thank you for not turning it off for another ill-conceived "ipv6 hour".
8. better topics, presentations - same people, same subjects always
9. Location was excellent, very easy access for those coming from Asia and Europe. Many engineers do come from outside the United States, so Nanog is no longer a North American Engineers event. I think people that had taken the time to come from abroad should be better taken care off. Many don't speak English fully, and having someone to help them feel welcomed is very helpful. I only saw one volunteer attempting to do that.
10. I think there should be more events or some mechanism that fosters more interactions between well-established members and newer attendees. The hallway gatherings and after events feel somewhat cliquish and many of the groups collecting about project an air unapproachability. For some of us who are mildly shy, it's hard to get past the initial introductions, if such can even be made.
11. shorter meetings? Add more topics so it keeps it more interesting (at least for people with kind of ADD)...
12. The undersea cable presentation was awesome. More deep-down tech stuff about interesting things. Like the optics preso by RAS last NANOG.
13. Good to have the wireless access.
14. Make sure sessions stay within time. Remind audience to be considerate and not talk amongst themselves with speaker is speaking.
15. More PgP signing parties. Having it during the morning break was bad timing for me. An afternoon slot would have been apprecaited.
16. I liked the wi-fi coverage, and the schedule was good
17. Wifi at 802.11a was good. Can't speak for b/g.
18. I really liked how food and drink was left out after the breaks were over so people could still socialize and network.
19. Some strong instruction to speakers to practice their presentations a bit more. Yes, it's an easy audience, but the speakers who held the audience's attention more had obviously practiced (or are used to public speaking). I can't make NANOG44 in LA (since it conflicts ever-so-slightly with a religious holiday for me) but I'm hoping to make NANOG45; I really learned a lot at this conference, and I'm hoping to learn more next time. Besides, this is a really cool community that I'm hoping to squeeze into.
20. nanog should be trying to incubate engineers of smaller scale networks and operations and consulting. This will have the effect of widening the community and hopefully extending nanog culture to benefit engineers and their work, which should be a net benefit to the net. More exchange of names faces contacts is probably a good idea.
21. It might be interesting to "advertise" a remote participation channel, either #nanog, or something just for the meeting on IRC/Jabber... Also for participants present in the meeting to talk in.
22. Start later! This is a bunch of ugly alcoholics that clearly need all the beauty sleep they can get.
23. Price of rooms!!! Seriously, for instance, the conference could have been held in another continent, and the difference in airfare would have been made up for, and then some, by the price of rooms. But, I didn't pay for it, my employer did, so feel free to ignore this comment.
24. Recently, most NANOGs have had plenty of table space for work + socializing outside of meetings. This was limited. This hotel was too swift to clear out food + most especially drinks.
25. better wireless coverage outside the conference rooms, like bar and patio
26. Larger Beer and Gear area. Felt like a sardine.
27. Too much marketing. This seems to be the trend.
28. registrations and socials ran very well, no improvement suggestions!
29. I think the backup hotel should be closer.
30. This was the first time I have streamed the meeting. It certainly had a few issues. The slides are hard to read and presenters should be advised to leave the bottom right square open for the video feed along with the slides. Audio cut out several times. Todd Underwood was quick to respond in getting it fixed.
31. registration was extremely painless more sugar-free cold (preferably cola-based) caffeine during morning meals/breaks
32. Thanks WIFI and Power for PCs.
33. would prefer some onsite lunch gathering w/keynote or group instead of "go out on your own" type of lunches.
34. Schedule was excellent! Love the 9:30 start, 1.5 hour lunch and 6pm end. PERFECT!
35. Do we really need 3 per year. Do we have enough content for 3.
36. More seating in lounge area
37. Whole organisation worked well.
38. test 16

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

Answered question

32

(skipped this question)

69

1. Physical infrastructure, attack metrics, Attack deterring/mitigation
2. More technical stuff. Less tutorial stuff. Less preaching.
3. Real World Techniques - Attack Mitigation (dos/ddos) tools used? software/hardware? 3rd party products? vendor specific capabilities, caveats? Tutorial: Route Policies - Creating effective routing policies for your network(s), hardware platforms, ios/junos code versions, techniques, prfx filters, as path lists, route maps - pros/cons - real world examples Choosing an IP Transit provider: Research, How to evaluate SP's, what data you need to look at, getting feedback, knowing connected networks The Service Provider: Cost Effective, Scalable, Value Added Methods of Delivering Services - talk about different ways to deliver certain services, hardware/software, software feature sets, configuration examples, business cases, etc etc
4. I would like to see more topics discussed that cover how to improve BGP routing experiences, like quick outage event response.
5. cooling/air/colocation/rackspace, spam/email, traffic management (Comcast?), country regulations for ISP... Not only BGP-related issues.
6. See above. Perhaps if there is anything substantially decided on the 100GE spec, perhaps a preso on that. Perhaps something on satellite? Perhaps something on emerging markets? What is fiber, cellular, etc. doing in Africa, India, South America, etc.?
7. 4G wireless, IPv6.
8. Less researchy presentations and more industry presentations
9. No. To new at this:>
10. Many Speakers need public speaking lessons
11. More topics on peering.
12. Could the sponsors be approached about providing a sandwich or box lunch - it may allow us to make lunches shorter improving the schedule
13. metro ethernet provider best-bractices
14. nothing specific yet, although more talks discussing major events that happen in between conferences (News flash updates!) get covered. "In case you were sleeping, here's our RCA [or our guess at an RCA])"
15. How to present and speak in CLEAR ENGLISH 101.
16. Invited speakers in relevant areas are good. E.g. the undersea cable one was excellent today.
17. Wrangle a few more talks like Alain Durand's talk on v4/v6 migration (i.e., viability studies or similar practical research in larger ISPs).
18. More on emerging operations issues like VoIP peering, ENUM, 10Gbps, etc. More Internet trend / traffic measurement.
19. less researchers and more real-life operators
20. It would be good to get an update of core and semi-core router updates from major vendors.
21. presenters should have questions for presenters if audience does not
22. Perhaps some advanced security tutorials.
23. I'd like to see more talks about enterprise networking - there's opportunities there for us as service providers to do a lot of clue-sharing.
24. IPV6, SDH/Ethernet, backhaul strategies, and how to do cost plus deals on capacity buys.
25. The deep insight into operations including previously undisclosed info from industry and ISPs is incredibly useful for advancing the science and industry around networking.
26. Social network CEO growth, network understandings, user statistics, user experience dependent on network etc.. Example: Facebook.
27. "new" technology implementation case studies, wherein a data connectivity organization reviews how it added new services and reviews what worked & what didn't (i'll use ipv6 & wireless as examples, thereby shifting the focus from design/standardization to adoption) Enough time has past since the great-ER depression/post y2k bubble collapse that vendor interoperability challenges might once again prove a compelling topic (if enough post-mortem data exists, inferences concerning progress may be drawn, this time bearing some legitimacy)
28. I want to see more response for any ideas in NANOG team from Cisco, Juniper, other product makers.
29. backbone upgrades US and abroad internet growth trends and forecasts transit dyanmics peering dynamics international internet trends data center supply/demand and trends (power/cooling/build-outs/green)
30. More topics about operating IP networks. Less Education/Research talks by people who haven't operated networks.
31. Yes: Obtaining an secure accredited network Deploying FMC ATM Over MPLS, another nail in the ATM coffin. (i can give this talk).
32. test 17

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

11

(skipped this question)

90

1. Check your notes - I've offered once, and never heard a peep.
2. My only suggestion is to pick places that are accessible thru direct flights.
3. I would like to see another venue in Texas, perhaps in Austin.
4. Major cities please ! More room blocks
5. More swag (stickers, etc.) :-)
6. Wear t-shirts so we know who you are. Bright t-shirts, with big logos.
7. David Diaz ruleZ
8. Please have NANOG in near future at Manhattan again.
9. None.
10. I like venues where cars are not required. A hotel in a dense area where you can walk or take public transit to most attractions is desirable.
11. test 18

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

Answered question

6

(skipped this question)

95

1. Although its more expensive - push environmentally conservative offerings. While we're high tech + future oriented, we need to lead in an environmentallly respectful way. Like using electronic surveys.
2. More swag :-) Also, in this world of rising desire for certifications, they could sponsor the CCIE lab exam here. (Most other exams are in promedia centers, two of which are within walking distance.) I don't know if there's a similar lab exam for Junipers, but getting them here...
3. Gouge them.
4. None.
5. I thought the Beer and Gear was done very well at this NANOG. I look forward to seeing the same plan in the future.
6. test 19

Why do you attend NANOG?

Answered question

65

(skipped this question)

36

1. Mainly to meet with the people, talk with them and work out problems or attract new interest.
2. Gain knowledge
3. Education, networking, future job prospects.
4. to get away from my cube hell
5. To learn what is going on in the industry and touch bases with colleagues.
6. Partly to hear some of the talks, but most importantly, to network with industry colleagues. Hallway conversations are a major part of NANOG. The PC must work harder to ensure better timekeeping in the sessions, to avoid squeezing of break periods. This seems to happen too much, and the breaks seem to be viewed by the NANOG organisers as expendable when trying to soak up overruns and delays. I'm certain the PC and SC do realise the importance of the social networking that happens in the hallways at NANOG, but more must be done to ensure enough time is alloted for this, and that alloted time is as respected as the time given over to the talks. I for one would not mind at all if a session finished early and an extended coffee or lunch break was the result, as I could get more hallway networking done.
7. Relevant to my position and company direction. I felt it to be very worthwhile, both professionally and personally.
8. For information in what direction internet technologies are going. and information on how to improve operational efficiency
9. To meet with colleagues and business contacts. To occasionally give technical presentations of interest to the community.
10. Meet up with people, chat about general stuff with everyone and get maybe a few nuggets of thoughts out of the presentations.
11. im a geek - and i love engineering, routing, networks, etc wanted to meet people ive always read stuff from, etc
12. I attended Nanog, because I am entering into the field of Network Technology. Attending Nanog allows me to socialize and get to know my fellow peers.
13. I am in the content space and as such want to get to know the operators and technical staff of the various carrier and end-user networks.
14. Meet up with friends, content.
15. to learn about ISP issues...
16. I always read the presentations, but this time NANOG was just a 15 minute walk away.
17. Vendors pay for my drinks
18. Chance to network with people in the industry.
19. To advocate my research and to learn about the practices and problems in networking
20. speaker
21. Get a better understanding of industry direction from my limited viewpoint at work
22. We try to send folks to all groups and major events WWDC, LISA, NETWORKERS, INTEROP, IETF, the whole gamut.
23. Peering relationships
24. To meet with people and be stimulated to learn
25. To get up to date on ISP subjects, meet people and visit someplace abroad.
26. to bette understand the operation of the national level networks and the challenges those operators face.
27. learning about what's current and what are concerns at ISPs and in networking.
28. learning about what's current and what are concerns at ISPs and in networking.
29. Technical content, meet with like minds.
30. Person to person networking.
31. Work in R&D for a large ISP. This is a good place to learn what's happening in the operational community, what problems they face, what they care about and what's on the horizon. Also to meet people in the operations community. All this helps a lot in grounding my research, setting its direction etc.
32. To see what it's like. I am a Systems Engineer by day, but it helps a lot to know what the Network Engineers are involved in since I collaborate with them a lot.
33. Social networking
34. A few reasons. 1) I have become quite interested in networking since I joined the NANOG mailing list in 2000, and the conference being right here in NYC made it irresistible to me to attend. 2) I wanted to put faces with all the names I've read over the years. 3) I'd like to socialize; I'm a consultant (running a small IT consulting firm) and meeting more people and increasing the number of folks I know and can turn to for expertise (or work!) can ONLY be a good thing--think Metcalfe's law for people. I've had a fantastic time here.
35. To catch up with people.
36. Because of the communmity.
37. Good integration with fellow peers. Obtain business contacts
38. I'm a network operator...
39. Biggest reason: it was in NYC - the hotel/travel budget didn't have to be justified.
40. Social networking, peering relationship building, and *some* limited vendor meets.
41. Meet folks, discuss tech, get cool stuff, in that order.
42. Meet customers and peers.
43. I liked the content in most cases.
44. presentations, networking, and travel/sight seeing
45. Business meetings and generally following topics of interest.
46. find the presentations informative and beneficial as well as networking with peers and vendors.
47. Location.
48. I attend to be in a room or hallway with a bunch of people who are way smarter than me. Occasionally I get some very specific learning, which is nice.
49. I'm a sado masochist and I enjoy the pain.
50. To meet old friends and chat in the hallway -- I'd like to say "To learn stuff at the technical presentations.", but they all seem to be aimed at the beginner level now.
51. networking
52. Part tutorial, part networking (the human kind), and part entertainment value. The free booze is great too.
53. I usually do a ton of business there and once in a while get something new out of a presenation.
54. it's an essential component of a multipronged solipsim-mitigation strategy to participate in the clear & free exchange of perspective most other professional development venues lack content & style
55. I want to know and confirm what our team doing is correct or not. And find any hints or ideas.
56. to meet peers and get a higher level overview of the industry
57. Becoming more active in the community. Meet up with my fellow members.
58. Understand practical real-world needs and solutions of ISPs.
59. Mostly networking with peers... but some content as well. Specifically here was the justification I used with my VP for coming. As you can see, very important to get the agenda out early! "http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0806/agenda.html 1) Networking - as always I find it valuable to continue working with my contemporaries in the industry to exchange best practices as well as work together for common industry needs. 2) "Peering Wars: Lessons Learned from the Cogent-Telia De-peering" talk is very relevant especially given our recent experience with Cogent. The de-peering happened because of Cogent changing their interpretation of the peering terms and putting undue pressure on Telia to peer in other locations. This could happen to us, and I'd to see the analysis. 3) Keynote is from Digg.com CEO... they generate massive amounts of traffic to websites which is obviously vital for our own sites to spread. 4) "RCAT: Root Cause Analysis Tool" is interesting for the tools development aspects and understanding what research is looking at with tools for analysis. In this particular case it is eBGP analysis, which may not be as interesting specifically to us, but the tool dev, requirements, and usage are what I'm interested in observing. It is from a researcher though... so value may be questionable. 5) "Network Measurement Tools" deals with tools being used on Internet2. Again, want to see where tools are heading and what we can do with our internal tools. 6) IANA and ARIN Updates - since they are our service providers, I'd like to see where and what they are doing."
60. to stay current on issues affecting the operation of the internet
61. Meeting peers
62. Gain insights into the backbone community issues
63. To develop new peering relationships and get educated about things that aren't immediately part of my focus.
64. I attended primarily because of the location. Making a case to spend time in New York is easy. Dominican Republic might be hard.
65. test 20

Would you be interested in a Day Pass to attend NANOG meetings?

Yes

33.3% (28)

No

67.9% (57)

Comments:

1. By the time I make it there I might as well stay for the duration. The whole Sunday start day is not the best.
2. what is a day pass? less conference expense? probably not.
3. I usually have to travel a long distance to attend so stay the whole week. Even if distance wasn't an issue, I would find it difficult to cover the various meetings and discussions I would need to have during the week. If I was buying a day pass, and the agenda had been changed - i.e. a talk or BoF moved to a different day than the one it was planned for, I would be mighty upset if it was a session I'd specifically got a day pass to attend. I think day passes are misguided, and won't change anything.
4. Possibly, only if of value and probably if it was being hosted locally. If it requires travel, I'd likely opt for the full schedule.
5. see next field
6. Coming from EU, it's just as useful to attend the whole thing.
7. This will be an excellent idea, since many of us can't attend for the whole event, and perhaps just want to attend a couple of the conferences.
8. I would not use it, but I think it would be good to have one anyway
9. Easier to justify the trip for the whole event.
10. If we're going to send folks, they'll go fo rthe whole program.
11. I come from Europe; travel long, meeting should not be less than 4 days
12. I've answered no since attending nanog means travelling to a destination and if I am going to go to that effort, I'll stay for the confernce. Day Passes may make it more accessible for people "local" to a particualr venue.
13. I personally woulnd't us it, but other people in my organization would find it useful.
14. If I'm going to fly away to faraway places, it doesn't really pay for me to make it a day trip. I have the feeling that especially for people who are presenting, two days is about the minimum it pays to fly out -- a good night's sleep is important, either before or after.
15. It's generally too far to travel to justify only spending one day.
16. I wouldnt take advantage of it, but others I know might.
17. Nanog is all ballers and shot callers, everyone can afford full registration.
18. Maybe only for locals who aren't staying in hotels? But why - even locals benefit by staying on-site. Doing otherwise only encourages bad behavior, like DWI/DUI. Better to not go there.
19. Yes/No/Maybe. Not sure. I guess it depends on the city.
20. I might not use this, but I can see the value.
21. it's a big commitment to come, the entry fee is not a factor.
22. sure, if it were a local venue
23. For me, the travel is generally more expensive than the conference fee, and rarely is one day THAT much more interesting than another.
24. Absolutely. That would allow us to skip the crap days and only attend what we want to. Love that idea.
25. not really. As a non american attendee travelling here is worth only for couple of days.
26. Coming from an IETF background, I see more value in attending the whole event. It's not that long anyways...jeez you weren't kidding about ADHD huh?
27. Sundays are great for interpersonal networking, Mon-Tue great for presentations and socials in bars and hallways. NANOG would not be complete without Sun-Tue. Wed tend to be less useful for me.
28. a desirable concomitant change would be to group topics together so that multiple presentations concerning a given theme occur on the same day (this may or may not already be happening; i'm far far too unmotivated to check) not sure if it's logistically possible, but alternatives might include (content) theme passes
29. I don't believe we should do this. $500 is already pretty cheap for a conference where you actually have an opportunity to learn something. If it happens, then I worry if we'll be able to cover costs.
30. The cost at $450 is a bit high for people who cannot expense it.
31. It would help local people with a lower cost alternative to see presentations of particular interest
32. Great Idea but charge a little big of a premium for it.
33. test 21

Answered question

84

(skipped this question)

17

If a Day Pass to attend NANOG meetings were to be available, would it affect your current registration pattern?

Yes

19.0% (15)

No

81.0% (64)

Comments:

1. I would not register any earlier. I already register fairly early.
2. Possibly, I may be able to attend more meetings.
3. Perhaps a pass that could reduce the registration fee for the sessions for local attendees that can per-se stay at home and come in for the sessions during the day would provide for better attendance rates.
4. How will you handle the 1/2 day Wednesday thing?
5. It would cheapen my full pass
6. Actually the correct answer is "maybe".
7. Probably would pick and choose days to attend. Probably will not ever again be traveling specifically to attend nanog. Attending this time because it was local to me, but in future might attend specific days if I could tie in other activities with the trip.
8. It's unlikely that I'll be a presenter in the next few years. If I'm going to come, I'm going to come and learn for the whole time.
9. Yes/No/Maybe. I guess it depends on the city.
10. This question makes no sense.
11. It depends who much it costs, I don't find the Sunday or the Wednesday relevant so would skip these days if it meant it was cheaper
12. see previous answer.
13. this would facilitate employer subsidization
14. travel costs dominate my visits to nanog, so there's no reason to seriously consider a day pass. nanog is cheap compared to other conferences.
15. MAYBE! It might if the meeting was local (or daily travel was easy enough) and all the good topics (non-Research/Education stuff) was on the same day. However, see previous comment that I worry about us making budget if it is available.
16. It might depending on agenda and cost
17. Probably not. I'll either attend or not.
18. test 22

Answered question

79

(skipped this question)

22

Is there something you would like to comment on which does not fit into a question above? Please leave us your comments here.

Answered question

25

(skipped this question)

76

1. Given how bad the webcast worked this time, it would have been a really good help had the stream recording been put on time right after the meeting. But as I just checked, this is 3 weeks after the meeting now, the recording is still not there yet.
2. I did the survey ;)
3. nanog is great. but please keep it at interesting locations. wasnt it just at LA a few years ago? small fries like me cant attend often so if there are 3 boring locations in a row i tend to miss a year. brooklyn is awesome. LA, San Jose, etc. ftl
4. Add more topics, make it more dynamic.
5. The program committee is doing an amazing job. Are you sure Todd is really involved? <snicker> I wonder about the half-day on Wednesday. So many people leave early, but you have good content there. Not sure what to do to solve it.
6. It would be convenient if the schedule was adjusted so that attendees staying the hosting hotel can use a break to check out. Low check out this time is 11 am. There is no pause between breakfast and 11 am so, I have to drag my luggage with me to breakfast. I'd rather come down to breakfast, email and attend a couple of sessions, then break and check out and only have to drag a suitcase to the final session and clsoing remarks. But perhaps thats just me. Would like to be able to use the room to brush teeth and clean up before travelling.
7. Wonderful network! Everything was amazing
8. Thanks!
9. wireless coverage was non-existant in the bar and BOF room.
10. Worrying about location is silly. Hold the meeting in cheap locations with a reasonable hotel. People that care about exotic locations or NFL cities shouldn't be coming to NANOG. As long as I can get a direct flight FROM an NFL city, I am happy.
11. I liked the idea of printing names on both sides of the badge. Don't know if this is a first in general, or a first for me personally. Anyways, it was good to know that people can see my name all the time (great for me ego) ;-)
12. I have to learn to ignore my laptop and pay more attention to the speakers sometimes....it's a matter of will, not of desire.
13. The survey should include trivia like did you use a mobile computing platform, what was it, what os/distribution did it run, how much time did you spend on work... A bag check. An electronic chat way to engage the speakers/presentations. Such as having an irc chat room, allowing more questions to be posed and allowing speakers to pick questioners out.
14. Big thank you to the PC and all presenters for their hard work.
15. Please try not to break the "agenda.html" web page during the conference! (It is broken, right now, Tuesday night of the conference. I reported it to nanog-support, but haven't gotten a reply other than the auto-responder.)
16. Recommend more ipv6 transition stuff ... like the idea of turning off ipv4 for an hour. Granted, the vendors aren't there yet - but the vendors only will get there if we get there ...
17. The October meeting overlaps with the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The 2009 holidays finish on Oct 11th, and the 2010 holidays finish on Oct 1st.
18. A HUGE amount to thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make this happen -- it is really appreciated.
19. Thanks for doing a great job! -TJ Kniveton
20. Another cry for double sided badges :)
21. No
22. The video is still horrific. In general, the Windows Media feed was the only one reliable enough to work, but the picture was so poor it was hardly usable. There are many professional videographers and amateur streaming hacks amongst the cloud of NANOG regulars; please tap this resource and provide adequate video streaming. This is a persistent complaint for years now, and I can't fathom why it continues to be of such embarrassingly poor quality. :(
23. Overall a great job
24. Don't print so many paper surveys!!!!! People at NANOG don't write, it's a waste of paper, etc., etc., etc.
25. test 23

 

 

^ Back to Top