This is not how I understood policy ("always consider NAT, but the decision is the customer's - and everybody can get as much addresses as they can show their need for"), so maybe the current policy isn't documented clearly enough...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
In my experience part of the problem is the word "need". Many people assume that "need" implies that there is no alternative solution available, which is a very hard thing to demonstrate. In fact current policy is much easier, since "need" is usually interpreted to be "want to use". For instance, if I have designed a system that will use 200 public addresses, one per website, then I do not have to prove to RIPE that virtual hosting is not an option for me, I just assert that the addresses will be used once allocated. In this case, I may well not "need" the space in the strong sense, but I do "need" it in the weak sense. Perhaps this ambiguity is a significant part of the problem? Matt Clark FDD/Netscalibur