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