Person profile
PersonMentorship Committee Secretary (NANOG)
The available evidence covers Roles: Mentorship Committee Secretary (NANOG).
Source description Mentorship Committee Secretary (NANOG)
Matthew Petach Secretary Term Ends: 2028
public people profile
Cc: Matthew Petach <>
public people profile
Matthew Petach Feb 2021
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-26
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Petach expressly supports 2005-1 and regards provider independence as necessary for business adoption of IPv6. His possible additions to reassure operators about route growth are not conditions of that support. Repetition within this one email does not establish a separate sequence of policy positions.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Petach expressly supports 2005-1 and regards provider independence as necessary for business adoption of IPv6. His possible additions to reassure operators about route growth are not conditions of that support. Repetition within this one email does not establish a separate sequence of policy positions.
Conditions: The view is attributed to this April 2006 contribution; no later deployment outcome or current position is inferred.
I support 2005-1 as a well thought out means to fix an otherwise broken protocol.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Consistent · Supporting provider-independent assignments does not conflict with requiring fair revocation conditions for a separate internal-infrastructure allocation. The first concerns access to independent addressing; the second concerns who can cause an allocation to be withdrawn. Both supplied positions can hold without contradiction.
Conditions: The conditional language on 2006-2 must not be carried over as a condition on Petach's explicit support for 2005-1.
the conditions under which the allocation can be revoked need to be clearly spelled out.
I support 2005-1 as a well thought out means to fix an otherwise broken protocol.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Petach favours the clarified options for internal infrastructure, but asks that any revocation rule distinguish the holder's conduct from a third party leaking its route. That is conditional support for a revised formulation. The supplied material does not include another intervention on this policy against which to assess change over time.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Petach favours the clarified options for internal infrastructure, but asks that any revocation rule distinguish the holder's conduct from a third party leaking its route. That is conditional support for a revised formulation. The supplied material does not include another intervention on this policy against which to assess change over time.
Conditions: The stated safeguard applies if the option allowing revocation is retained; it is not an objection to every proposed option.
the conditions under which the allocation can be revoked need to be clearly spelled out.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Consistent · Supporting provider-independent assignments does not conflict with requiring fair revocation conditions for a separate internal-infrastructure allocation. The first concerns access to independent addressing; the second concerns who can cause an allocation to be withdrawn. Both supplied positions can hold without contradiction.
Conditions: The conditional language on 2006-2 must not be carried over as a condition on Petach's explicit support for 2005-1.
the conditions under which the allocation can be revoked need to be clearly spelled out.
I support 2005-1 as a well thought out means to fix an otherwise broken protocol.
