Hi Sander,
> On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > At the last RIPE meeting I tried to get community consensus on a statement to > make it clear what the best way is to use the last remaining IPv4 addresses. > Consensus in the plenary failed and the feedback I got was that we needed > something stronger. And then I forgot about it... > > So far, I have come up with the following statement: > > """ > It is important to realise that there isn't any IPv4 space left; the RIPE NCC > has a small reserve to allow new members to get a /22 so they can start up a > business, to bootstrap and to communicate with the legacy Internet. But this > is not something anybody can build their future on. The only way to survive > in the future is to implement IPv6 from the start. It is not sustainable to > build an IPv4-only network anymore. The best current operational practice is > to build IPv6 networks and have translation mechanisms to IPv4, and that is > the only sustainable way forward. Anything else will require increasing > investments in a declining technology. > """ > > I think it's not good enough, but I lack inspiration to make it better. I > would appreciate help from this task force. Thanks, it looks ok to me, two things I would change are: "translation mechanisms” to "transitioning mechanisms”, in order to make it more generic. Also, I’m not sure about the last phrase. "Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology.” It’s not a declining technology, but a legacy technology. Just my quick 2 cents… Nathalie
