On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Jima <na...@jima.us> wrote: > On 2017-12-27 14:10, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> On Dec 27, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Doesn't Hulu (et al) have an obligation to provide service to their >>> paying customers? >>> >>> Does this obligation extend to providing service independent of the >>> carrier that paying customers uses? >>> >>> Or if Hulu choose to exclude known problem carriers (i.e. VPN providers) >>> don't they have an obligation to confirm that their exclusions are >>> accurate? Further, to correct problems if their data is shown to be >>> inaccurate? >>> >> >> I have a suspicion that these folks acquired IP space that was previously >> marked as part of a VPN provider, or Hulu is detecting it wrongly as VPN >> provider IP space. >> > > I was sitting on this, but what the heck. > > I personally am curious as to what bug and/or feature allowed a random > WISP in Utah (or the parent-ish ISP in New Jersey) to have IP space > allocated from AfriNIC. > > One might consider Hulu et al not so at-fault with that fact in > consideration.
Hi Jima, Net 196/8 is part of the swamp. Just speculating, but perhaps the original registration of 196.53.96.0/22 pre-dated the reassignment of 196/8 to AfriNIC? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
