Marc E. Hidalgo
mhidalgo at sprint.net
Thu Jun 20 22:29:30 UTC 1996
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.
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Tim Salo wrote:
> Subject: Re: Sprint NAP
> > To: Peter Lothberg <roll at stupi.se>
> > Cc: "nanog" <nanog at merit.edu>
> > Subject: Sprint NAP
> > From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:04:26 +0200
> > > Peter Lothberg <roll at 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"
> You are correct that the language seems rather emphatic to networking
> types, but it probably works well for the lawyers.
More information about the NANOG