Re: Sprint NAP

["Marc E. Hidalgo" <mhidalgo () sprint net>]

One must increasingly _spell things out_ these days. Good to elliminate 
misunderstandings ; bad to not be able to depend on goodwill and doing 
the right thing.

Marc

On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Tim Salo wrote:

> Subject: Re: Sprint NAP
>
> > To: Peter Lothberg <roll () stupi se>
> > Cc: "nanog" <nanog () merit edu>
> > Subject: Sprint NAP 
> > From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg () ripe net>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:04:26 +0200
> >
> >   > Peter Lothberg <roll () stupi se> writes:
> >   > 
> >   >                 SPRINT NETWORK ACCESS POINT (NAP)
> >   >                        TERMS AND CONDITIONS
> >   > ....
> >   > 
> >   > 6.      IP Address Assignment
> >   > 
> >   > The customer shall receive his IP address assignment(s) from Sprint.  Any
> >   > address(es) provided by Sprint shall remain the property of Sprint ...
> >                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Address ownership .... what a concept.
> > Although this is doing the right thing, the wording is dubious.
>
> Actually, I believe that the addresses in question are _host_ addresses,
> (for devices directly attached to the Sprint NAP).  I don't quite know
> what someone would do with a Sprint NAP host address if they "kept"
> it.
>
> You are correct that the language seems rather emphatic to networking
> types, but it probably works well for the lawyers.
>
> -tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -