Skip to main content

AS15428

DAGNET-AS

OJSC "Vimpelcom"

Registry

Authoritative registration data

AS number
15428
Name
DAGNET-AS
Organisation
OJSC "Vimpelcom"
Country
—
RIR
RIPE
Registered
Source:asn:rdap retrieved

IPv4 prefixes

6

IPv6 prefixes

0

Total announced

6

Announced prefixes

Observed in BGP by route collectors, not a registry allocation list

Prefixes announced by AS15428
178.213.24.0/21 IPv4 /21 not checked
194.1.248.0/22 IPv4 /22 not checked
195.211.88.0/22 IPv4 /22 not checked
193.33.88.0/23 IPv4 /23 not checked
146.158.95.0/24 IPv4 /24 not checked
84.42.79.0/24 IPv4 /24 not checked

No rows match “”.

Showing – of

Source:ripestat:announced-prefixes observed

Internet Exchanges

Exchanges where this network has a listed peering LAN connection

Internet Exchange memberships listed for AS15428
Address families
MSK-IX Moscow: MSK-IX peering network — IPv4

No rows match “”.

Showing – of

Source:peeringdb retrieved

Exchange membership means the network has a listed connection; it does not prove peering with other members.

Observed adjacencies

Networks seen next to AS15428 in BGP paths by route collectors.

Source:ripestat:asn-neighbours observed

Observed upstreams

5 networks seen before AS15428 in AS paths

Observed upstreams
Families
AS12389 ROSTELECOM-AS 126 486
v4
AS3216 SOVAM-AS 61 268
v4
AS6939 HURRICANE 19 83
v4
AS25091 IP-Max 3 15
v4
AS34267 10 11
v4

No rows match “”.

Showing – of

Observed downstreams

0 networks seen after AS15428 in AS paths

No downstreams observed

This AS was not seen carrying traffic towards another network.

Uncertain adjacencies

2 adjacencies that may be an artefact of collector peering

Uncertain adjacencies
Families
AS24482 SGGS-AS-AP 1 10
v4
AS49673 TRUENETWORK 1 5
v4

No rows match “”.

Showing – of

Note:
These are observed adjacencies derived from BGP path data, not confirmed commercial relationships. A network appearing before another in an AS path does not establish that it is a paying transit customer, a settlement free peer, or anything else contractual. Adjacencies marked uncertain were seen only as direct peers of a route collector, so the collector's own peering may have created them.