Skip to main content

AS200976

Lifestream-AS

===================================================

Registry

Authoritative registration data

AS number
200976
Name
Lifestream-AS
Organisation
===================================================
Country
—
RIR
RIPE
Registered
Source:asn:rdap retrieved

IPv4 prefixes

3

IPv6 prefixes

0

Total announced

3

Announced prefixes

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

Prefixes announced by AS200976
185.198.112.0/24 IPv4 /24 RPKI valid
185.198.114.0/24 IPv4 /24 not checked
37.18.127.0/24 IPv4 /24 RPKI not found

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 AS200976
Address families
BAIKAL-IX: Peering LAN — IPv4
CLOUD-IX MSK — IPv4
GNM-IX — IPv4
MSK-IX Moscow: MSK-IX peering network — IPv4 · IPv6
MegaFon-IX: Main — IPv4
PERM-IX — IPv4
PITER-IX Saint-Petersburg: SPB_PEERING_VLAN — IPv4
SFO-IX: SFO-IX — IPv4
Sea-IX — IPv4
Sibir-IX — IPv4
W-IX: vlan800 — 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 AS200976 in BGP paths by route collectors.

Source:ripestat:asn-neighbours observed

Observed upstreams

17 networks seen before AS200976 in AS paths

No rows match “”.

Showing – of

Observed downstreams

0 networks seen after AS200976 in AS paths

No downstreams observed

This AS was not seen carrying traffic towards another network.

Uncertain adjacencies

20 adjacencies that may be an artefact of collector peering

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.