Policy and PR problem

> 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