asn.dev

Autonomous system

AS10847 Podernet, S.A. de C.V.

Unclassified

IPv4 addresses 8.19K 1 prefixes
IPv6 prefixes 0 counted as prefixes, not addresses
Countries 1 mostly MX
Flagged prefixes 0 none

Summary

Podernet, S.A. de C.V.

Mexico · AI-generated

isp legacy

AS10847 belongs to Podernet, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican company registered with LACNIC at an address in Mexico City. It is one of the small early Mexican internet providers that received a 200.x allocation when LACNIC space was first handed out.

What it's used for

Very little can be said with confidence, and this card will not pretend otherwise. RIS sees a single announced IPv4 prefix — 200.36.0.0/19, 8,192 addresses — no IPv6, and one observed BGP neighbour. A single prefix originated behind a single upstream is a network that makes no routing decisions of its own: it exists to hold one block of address space and hand it to one carrier.

The sampled reverse DNS is unusual. The PTRs that answer return the in-addr.arpa name itself (5.0.36.200.in-addr.arpa), which is a degenerate or placeholder record rather than a hostname naming a server, a subscriber line or a customer. It tells us the zone is delegated and answering, and nothing else about what the addresses carry.

Notable

There is no honest way to derive a customer type here. The holder is a real, registered Mexican company with self-registered space, so this is not the scattered-prefix shape of an address broker — but between an enterprise, a hosting estate and a small access ISP, the routing and DNS evidence does not choose. It is left unclassified rather than guessed.

This description is AI-generated, best-effort context — not authoritative, and provided without any guarantee of accuracy. Source, and how to suggest an edit.

Address space

Summary

Full explorer
CountryNamePrefixes
MXMexico1

Reputation

Classification and threat

Unclassified Not in the curated lists. Most of the ~80,000 allocated ASNs are not.

No IC3 indicators Nothing from the FBI IC3 feed.

Threat data is alpha. Absence of an indicator is not evidence of good behaviour, only of absence from this one feed.

Elsewhere

Cross-check