11–15 of 15 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other way around. It's branded as twitch, but delivered over aws. Twitch doesn't own any infrastructure.
So what's the difference between AS46489 and AS16509?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right so the ISP should saw AWS like it does for other streamers on Kick, except for XQC (checked like 2-3 other streams). How come it says Twitch on XQC's stream and AWS for the other streams?
Twitch doesn't own any streaming infrastructure, it's all cloud providers. If it's being labelled as twitch it's because twitch dominated that subnet of their cloud provider for a while. You should consider that "looking the ip up" is really just asking some random company what they think the ip is.
Renting out bandwidth to the "competition" is not uncommon. It's not really competition when you're making money. >this shouldn't even be possible since CORS should stop it, right...? CORS is meaningless outside the controlled environment of a web browser. Besides, CORS is opt-in. Website operators can chose whether or not to share (it's in the name).
I also don't think that's the case here because they are both on AWS so it's not their own servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other way around. It's branded as twitch, but delivered over aws. Twitch doesn't own any infrastructure.
So what's the difference between AS46489 and AS16509?