NANOG Program Survey

Please complete by 21:00 PST March 16, 2005

All questions are optional, though we encourage you to answer as much as you can. Aggregate data will be made available to the public, but individual responses will be shared only with the NANOG program committee and any Merit staff involved in processing the data.

1. While NANOG has traditionally met as a single 'plenary' group, with all attendees watching the same talk at the same time in a large hall, some similar conferences like RIPE spend a portion of their time broken out into several parallel smaller 'tracks' which focus on issues which are thought to be interesting to specific subsets of the attendees. Do you feel that: all NANOG talks should address the whole body of attendees   29.4% (25) part of NANOG's program should be divided into more specialized tracks   69.4% (59) TOTAL   98.8% 85

2. In general, more tracks means that a greater range of speakers and specialized interests can be accommodated, but it also means that the size of each session will be smaller and less predictable, and more logistical challenges will be encountered in organizing the meeting. This may lead to increased conference fees to cover additional costs. Given the above tradeoffs, how many simultaneous tracks do you feel would be appropriate? One (no tracks, a single plenary meeting as before)   28.2% (24) Two   48.2% (41) Three   17.6% (15) Four   3.5% (3) Five or more (0) TOTAL   97.6% 85

3. If you believe that tracks are a good idea, what tracks do you feel need to be included? (List track topics, separated by commas.) # Response 1 security,routing and core infrastructure,research and bleeding edge,edge and aggregation,legal/political/regulatory 1 beginner (smaller ISP-targeted tracks), more advanced topics (those that affect larger ISPs, research topics) 1 Security Related, Peering Related, General NANOG Topics 1 Network providers (provide internet bandwidth to other customers) Enterprise networks (provide network connectivity for their own company/organization and do not resell bandwidth) 1 I don't think I'd do the same tracks every time, but some things I think it would be neat try would be one day sessions on peering and economics, and a "what's happening elsewhere" track on issues network operators are facing in other parts of the world. This isn't trying to be an all-inclusive list; hopefully others will post the tracks they'd like to see. Sorry for my lack of comma separation. 1 General Session, Security, Routing, Services(VPNS, Pseudo-wires,etc) 1 operational, security, vulnerability, coordination 1 service provider issues (backbone engineering), security, voip, email (spam, etc), content provider issues, peering 1 BCP tutorials/exchange, BGP large-scale, Multiaccess, Tunneling, v6, security 1 network operator (true layer 2 and 3), and then layer 4 and above (spam, etc). Seperating the tracks by ISO layer would be interesting :) 1 Emerging Technology, Troubleshooting 101, Problems of Today & Tomorrow 1 Routing, Security, Access Technologies, Data Centers, Network Management, Voice and Video, Legal, Research topics 1 Not Attending 1 Core WAN Backbones, IGP's etc Core LAN Backbones, content provider issues Security, DDoS, etc. 1 Engineering, Operations 1 Beginner Stuff / aka best practicies (usually duplicated at every nanog), Everything Else 1 tools (such as configuration generation scripts), network monitoring, VoIP, FTTH/FTTP, datacenter design, web hosting industry concerns 1 Current track, along with a "newcomers/Best Practices" track, much like the current BGP tutorials on Sundays. 1 security, peering, routing, policy 1 non-IPv4 unicast layer 3 (multicast/ IPv6/ IPSec), peering, IPv4 unicast, applications (VoIP/email architectures), transmission (layers 0-2) 1 Technical Nitty-Gritty How-To track (BGP config, MPLS config) Overall Network Operations track (Cymru bogon, FBI, INOC-DBA, keysigning, etc...) 1 Info and intro level track including academic paper results and ietf reports ("we are working on foo and need your opinions") and policy info track. (in other words, general track with info of use to everyone or that everyone needs to hear) Intermediate-to-expert level track (tutorials and heavy geek component, focused on specific problem/area, of most use only to those interested in the specific topic) 1 tracks are generally a bad idea, but a core/eyeball-edge/hosting division might be appropriate if sufficient content could be gleaned. so my recommendation above is under slight duress. 1 Track 1: Sessions directly applicable to how ISPs run their ops today (incl. security) Track 2: Research, futures, new technologies, history (e.g. "BGP: the Movie"), interesting trends, etc. 1 New Hardware, New Software, Need-to-Know suff, Security, SPAM, VoIP 1 introductions and or tutorials, all other 1 network operations, security, standards updates 1 Most of the same ones as RIPE -- IPv6, DNS, SPAM, WAN infrastructure, BGP configuration for dummies, ENUM, Security, etc... 1 Security, Routing/Peering, Ops 1 routing/peering (including route filtering), user facing services (i.e. applications related, e.g. SMTP, DNS, Spam filtering), O&M (facilities planning, NOC, escalation policies, etc.) 1 Routing and related operational issues and security. 1 Perhaps a "hard" track focusing on routing minutia (as we have now), and a "soft" track focused on larger Internet issues such as policy and governance. This would better reflect the nature of the list itself, where the most popular threads seem to always be about something other than flowing bits. 1 operators talking about reality vendors spewing their normal spew 1 Networking, Security, Infrastructure 1 Layer 2/3 (media, routing protocols, IX engineering, infrastructure security....) Value-added services (DNS, VoIP, firewalls, email, security services....) 1 Security IP routing/Backbone Research? 1 Peering, NSP-Security, Tools, And I wouldn't mind a sales session from hardware vendors to be honest. 1 one track for operations and one track for research, new but non-production technology, marketing, etc 1 Operational Tutorials for Introductions to topics 1 Operations, and research. 1 Research Routing and Peering Security 1 Security, VoIP, Spam, Research, Beginner, Peering, BGP, MPLS 1 I don't feel they need to be so specific, just give folks a choice between 2 subjects rather than expecting everyone to attend one. 1 One for ISPs and one for non-ISPs 1 IP routing and policy,MPLS technology and implementations,Layer 2/Layer 3 VPN,network security,voice services(VOIP) 1 routing, security 1 Everything you wanted to know about BGP but were afraid to ask, Regulation and self-regulation of ISP's 1 list of possible topics: tutorials [potentially subdivided as-needed], standards updates, registry updates, mutlimedia (cover voip, mcast a/v, video distribution, etc), security, peering, etc, etc 1 BGP/Routing Protocols, New Technology, Other

4. Of the tracks you proposed, which would you attend personally? (List track topics, separated by commas.) # Response 1 core LAN, Security 1 Security 1 all except multi-access (I have no use for access ;-) ) 1 Occasionally as topics were relevant to my environment. 1 As many as I could 1 non-IPv4 unicast layer 3, IPv4 unicast, applications 1 Since I'm not a network engineer anymore (but still want to be part of the NANOG community, as I have for many years), I'd lean towards the soft track. 1 Many of my interests could fit into either track, depending on specifics, but I would be most likely to attend routing, DNS, and infrastructure security topics. Some topic areas-- measurement, management, IPv6-- could easily inspire presentations in either track, but it's hard to think of a taxonomy for more tracks that would still be reasonably easy to fill. 1 Software, VoIP, N2K. 1 outing/peering, O&M 1 Security IP routing/Backbone 1 mutlimedia, security, peering 1 BGP & New Tech 1 Mostly security. 1 See above. 1 operations 1 DNS & SPAM (as active participant); IPv6, WAN infrastructure, BGP configuration for dummies, ENUM, Security, etc... (as interested audience member). 1 ISP 1 Both. There will be conflicts between the heavy geek track and the intro level track, at which point I would probably attend the heavy geek stuff if it was of specific interest, otherwise I would attend whatever was on offer on the info/intro track. 1 Back and forth depending on interest. Please align individual presentation start times. 1 Network Ops 1 more advanced topics 1 Spam, Peering, BGP 1 H'mmm. Would be dependent on the actual topics. I'm interested in both. ;-) 1 See #3 1 security,coordination 1 Both - I'd have to pick and choose which track at which time 1 Routing, Security, Network Management, Voice and Video 1 Enterprise networks 1 security,routing and core infrastructure,research and bleeding edge 1 i would switch between them, based on individual presentations or presenters. sure hope there's not a surcharge for hall-hopping. 1 operators 1 General Session, Security, Routing 1 Security, Routing/Peering 1 Peering, NSP-Security, Tools, Vendor Sales 1 network operations, security 2 all 1 Probably some of each but more of the peering. 1 most of the all other 1 Networking, Security, Infrastructure 1 Everything else, sometimes beginner stuff when dealing with latest best current practices. 1 Both. I want to hear about the latest service provider challenges, but I also would like to sit in on some sessions that I'm sure a lot of the long-term members of the NANOG community would see as old news. 1 peering, security, routing - depending on the presentations scheduled. 1 IP routing and policy,MPLS technology and implementations,Layer 2/Layer 3 VPN,network security,voice services(VOIP) 1 Emerging Technology 1 routing, security 1 Everything you wanted to know about BGP but were afraid to ask, Regulation and self-regulation of ISP's

5. If one or more tracks were devoted to introductory or tutorial material, would you: (check all that apply) be interested in attending?   55.3% (47) be willing to present your experiences as a talk?   47.1% (40) send others to NANOG to attend the track?   48.2% (41)

6. Please rate the current coverage of these topics: 1 (not enough) to 5 (too much) Average rank 1 2 3 4 5 Access provider networking  (2.3) Backbone provider networking  (3.0) Content provider networking  (2.4) Enterprise networking  (2.6) New technologies  (2.1) Security  (2.5) Standards (e.g. IETF work)  (2.9) Policy (e.g. governance, legal issues)  (2.9) Peering  (3.0) Research  (3.0) Tutorials/training  (2.7) VoIP  (2.2) Business/economic issues  (2.4)

7. What topics, other than those listed in the previous question, would you like to see on the agenda? # Response 1 History -- how did we get here? What decisions were made, and why? 1 BOF and more round-table discussions 1 unless i'm missing something or there is an effort afoot to expand franchise into the IT (as opposed to SP) arena, i don't think "enterprise networking" should be on the radar. beam me up scotty! :) 1 Network management. Security management. More network management. Did I mention network management? (80-90% of my time seems to be dedicated to management. Always interested in hearing about new tools, how site "x" handles problem "y", more new tools, trouble ticket systems, project management systems (anybody got one that works?), netflow export and reporting, etc. "Finger pointing" tools - how the help desk helps the customer find the real problem. How god-awful most of the vendor management offerings are, etc. etc. Anybody got a vendor management system that they like? Security management - how to monitor, manage, troubleshoot security issues. Change management - policies and tools for managing change in your system. Best current practices? Standards (ITIL et al), etc. 1 NANOG sponsored projects - note that RIPE runs projects like Test Traffic Measurement 1 Lessons learned, Best Current Policies/Practices 1 IPv6 1 I would like to see some Sysadmin-ish type of talks. Could be part of a tools track. 1 Barriers to deployment of specific topics such as IPSEC, IPv6, VoIP, etc. What we as a community can do to foster the deployment..... 1 Performance monitoring and management for heavily assymetric (eg, mostly content, or mostly eyeball) networks. 1 Practical Traffic Engineering Techniques NOC automation Tools(abuse, error rates, anomoly detection) 1 N/A 1 None 1 Newer kinds of tutorials, other than BGP/Routing. What about the use of load balancers, etc...more edge networking. 1 Vendor wish-lists. 1 Techniques for complex problem resolution 1 That looks good. 1 Wireless (WiFi, WiMAX) and any other technology that reduces reliance on 3rd party infrastructure 1 see above 1 Software tools (monitoring and management) Large recursive DNS issues and management Wireless Data center design and operation Operating large multi-user systems (email/web/shell) servers International connectivity considerations and issues 1 Interprovider MPLS connectivity options 1 I am not qualified to answer #6, because I have not (yet) attended any NANOG conferences. I do not believe that I'm qualified to answer #7, either. 1 International concerns, global issues (such as WGIG and other aspects of the efforts to move ICANN to an international control) 1 That's a pretty good list 1 Security, Network Management 1 I don't feel comfortable with this question or the previous one because it's been a long time since I attended a NANOG meeting and listened to all of the program. It's difficult to rate relative coverage of these topics, or suggest new ones, when I don't have a good grasp of recent trends. 1 Spam, DNS 1 Bogon filtering. The biggest problem facing network operators today, in a macroscopic sense, is bogon filtering practices. Yet no one on NANOG-L talks about it (they're more interested in flapping their yaps about spam). Go figure. 1 More operations-centric focus on the listed topics.

8. If you have other comments on the structure and content of NANOG meetings that you would like us to consider, please enter them here: # Response 1 don't feel like it has to be in new locations all that often. go back to places that have worked well in the past. 1 In general, I hate having to choose between parallel topics that may both be of good use to me, hence my vote for staying with single track for the main session; BOFs on Sunday and in evenings can happen in parallel as appropriate. 1 It might be nice to have two tracks at any one time, but have multiple tracks throughout NANOG. For instance, Monday morning could be MPLS in one track and Security in the other, with two other tracks in the afternoon. And perhaps only one track Tuesday or something. This way people can pick what they want, or roam the halls, and still have the opportunity to get the info they need. 1 Id like to see them run more professionally i.e. people who run the meeting actually sit at the podium and run the meeting. Also, you mentioned about raising fees if there are more tracks. I'd pay more, but I think you'd have to prove to us that the current fees aren't excessive. Many feel they are. 1 If you are going to do multiple tracks, I would rather have them separated by day, and not run concurrently. I enjoy being exposed to new things and learn a lot from the discussions at NANOG. I fear that if multiple tracks were going on concurrently, I would be forced to miss talks that I would like to see. Instead, make one day a beginner day, or best common practices day or whatever, and make a different day the new technologies and dealing with crap at the backbone level that the big guys want to hear. I want to see it all and don't want to be forced to miss talks. 1 NANOG has been doing a great job with limited resources. NANOG is one of the only high quality sources of information and tutorials at reasonable cost with a focus on networking. That needs to continue and new ideas and multiple tracks and all the rest should not be allowed to destabilize the excellent "tone" that NANOG has, which is one of like-minded networking geeks getting together to help one another with info. 1 N/A 1 Not a comment on meetings, but a comment on the survey...I couldn't find any real place to put it in, so I put it here... On the "how often do you attend" question it didn't really have an allowance for "I attended 3/yr starting before NANOG was formed up until a couple of years ago when it dropped to about one per two years." My consulting business wasn't bringing in as much and NANOG meeting usefulness (to me) had dropped. Thus, my NANOG-lifetime average is around 2/yr (which is what I checked), but if you wanted to base on recent data, "Less than 1/yr" would have been more accurate. 1 Color code seating areas to encourage people with different interests to sit in different areas. For instance, people who want to pop in and out should sit in the back, people who want to ask questions should sit near the aisles, etc. This way there would be less disruptions from key clatter and movement. 1 Last time I went to the nsp-sec BoF it was too big and too much in the presentation style. It was held in the main hall and lacked the informality that past BoFs enjoyed. I'm not a big fan of the multiple track idea. Inevitably there are going to be sessions held at the same time and I'll really want to attend both. It also seems odd that NANOG meetings would grow now. Perhaps wait for the presentation proposals to grow before doing more tracks? I think the overall balance of topics has been pretty good. I always enjoy anything that comes out of Van Jacobson or his organization. Sally Floyd is another gem whose work is always important in my opinion. Caida has lots of good stuff, presentations on their recent work should be as regular as Phil Smith's tutorials. 1 I the end, the goal is to leave the attendees with something that makes them want to come back. Given the fluid nature of the industry, this means that NANOG needs to be flexible and constantly adjusting course offerings if it wants to grow. 1 The quality of panel discussions seems to be very uneven (I'm sure it's like herding cats to pull one off) - maybe fewer panels? 1 For multiple track idea can be used in the sunday and evening sessions if there are enough to populate the time. Sessions that can be put there might be talks with a smaller population of interest. My main issue with multiple tracks for the plenary session is that overlap will happen and it won't be possible to attend one of two interesting talks. Also, if we've had a hard time getting quality talks for the plenary in the first place we don't need to look for more timeslots to fill until there are enough talks that are in danger of being rejected. 1 Provide break-out rooms for follow-up converstations. 1 Require presenters to have their presentation completed prior to attending the meeting; last minute presentations often have variable quality. Consider publishing proceedings in printed form. 1 I've attended RIPE meetings, and I think the format and methodology works well. My wife and I will be coming back to the US this year, and I hope to be able to attend a few NANOG conferences. I would be interested to see how the RIPE model would translate to the US. 1 While two tracks are nice and provide for a more personalized attendance, it does become difficult. I had a hard time in Reston deciding which track to attend because two really good ones were running at the same time. 1 The primary purpose of attending NANOG meetings for senior people in our field has become the "hallway meetings". I think the program could be considerably more compelling than I have found it without sacrificing the "hallway meetings" incentive. 1 i would suggest single track all day monday and tues morning. start out with tues afternoon and run 4 tracks. gain some experience with totally blowing out nanog. 1 Though I strongly feel single track makes for a better conference experience, the last few years seem to show an increasingly large gap in knowledge level of the attendees. This along with the fact that more 'basic' operational topics which have only minor innovations might find a home in a second track leads me to support that approach. 1 Stop letting students/researchers dominate the agenda. The scope of interest for the latest $doohickeythatmeasuressomething is small. Network operators need to discuss and know about larger issues which affect (or potentially affect) nearly everyone. 1 Too much gets crammed into Mondays, especially Monday evenings. It would be nice to have some BOFs on Sunday evening. 1 Please run during business hours of the business week 1 Need to consider the small network operator especially small ISPs 1 Re question #10 below, I'd attend much more often if it were more applicable to my job. 1 Given the expense associated with attending the NANOG meetings I believe the "introductory" topics should be removed from the agenda altogether and the time reallocated for more productive use. If someone is interested in introductory course then he/she does not qualify for "network operator" and should attend a (much cheaper) CCNA class. 1 get operators on the PC 1 It might be nice to get a keynote speaker from time to time. It does take up part of the meeting, but they tend to be visionary and provoke discussion. Just a thought, but not necessary by any means. 1 I've been going to a lot of *NOG meetings in various parts of the world lately, as well as the peering forums, both as an attendee and a presenter. I've noticed that elsewhere (either due to tracking or smaller attendance), I see lots of presentations to small groups of interested people that generate lively discussion. At NANOG, I see far away people giving talks to "audiences" of hundreds of people who mostly have their heads burried in their laptops, with little resulting discussion. This makes presenting at NANOG seem rather unattractive, and leads me to seek out other venues. 1 I dislike Vijay's idea of one more WAN core presentation, and it will never need to be discussed again. Perhaps it could be pushed to a tutorial track. But that assumes that there will never be new nanog attendees or new network engineers who are interested. 1 I don't think more than two tracks will work. I would suggest two tracks on monday, Beer and Gear *after* a dinner break. Tuesday hold an open plenary that maybe didn't start until after noon.

The following questions are for demographic purposes.

9. What country are you based in? Canada   8.2% (7) United States   80.0% (68) Mexico (0) Other: AU   1.2% (1) Other: Belgium   1.2% (1) Other: Germany   2.4% (2) Other: The Netherlands   4.7% (4) Other: UK   1.2% (1) TOTAL   98.8% 85

10. How often do you usually attend NANOG meetings? 3 per year   22.4% (19) 2 per year   23.5% (20) 1 per year   24.7% (21) Less than once per year   11.8% (10) Never   17.6% (15) TOTAL   100.0% 85

11. Please rate your skill and experience in network operations: 1 (novice) to 5 (expert) Average rank 1 2 3 4 5 Self-rating  (4.0)

12. Which category most accurately describes your involvement in the industry? Executive   4.7% (4) Manager   12.9% (11) Operations   16.5% (14) Engineering   51.8% (44) Researcher   2.4% (2) Marketing   1.2% (1) Sales (0) Other:   1.2% (1) Other: Combined engineering/research   1.2% (1) Other: Consultant   1.2% (1) Other: Consultant - somewhere between Eng and Ops   1.2% (1) Other: Mostly operations, but I dable elsehwere   1.2% (1) Other: Words can't describe   1.2% (1) Other: cert/cc (have been an ISP, network engineer, cisco infosec)   1.2% (1) Other: consultant   1.2% (1) Other: vuln disclosure   1.2% (1) TOTAL   100.0% 85

If you would like us to be able to contact you regarding your survey answers, please fill in the following. This information will not be shared beyond the program commitee and Merit Networks staff who may assist in compiling the data.

13. Name: # Response (names removed from public version)

14. Email address: # Response (addresses removed from public version)