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. Cheers, Sander
Hi Sander,
On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> 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
If we want to be more accurate and correct, we should use: “transition and coexistence” This is also the way at IETF are officially described. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: BCOP <bcop-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie@ripe.net> Responder a: <nathalie@ripe.net> Fecha: lunes, 31 de octubre de 2016, 13:15 Para: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> CC: bcop <bcop@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [bcop] IPv4 statement Hi Sander, On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
participants (3)
-
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Nathalie Trenaman -
Sander Steffann