Autonomous system
AS12580 omniTEC Euvic Solutions S.A.
Unclassified RIPE
Summary
omniTEC
enterprise business
768 addresses and an acquisition recorded in the middle of the holder's name.
What it's used for
- Corporate connectivity from Warsaw. 768 addresses in two IPv4 prefixes, one observed BGP neighbour, and no IPv6 announced.
Notable
- The two announcements are
83.175.174.0/23and83.175.160.0/24. - Both carry the netname
PL-OMNITEC, with no date attached — unusual in a range where almost every netname is stamped with the day it was issued. - The registered holder is
omniTEC Euvic Solutions S.A., and the contact on both blocks isOMNITEC TEAM. - The AS handle is
OMNITEC Warsaw, Poland, the second entry in this range to use the name field for a location after INCAS in Krefeld. - Six sampled addresses were queried and none returned a reverse name.
Interesting
- The holder string is two company names welded together with a space. One firm bought the other, the registry record was edited rather than replaced, and the join is still showing. Netnames outlive mergers because renaming a block means updating every reference to it.
- Both blocks sit inside
83.175.160.0/20without filling it, which means the surrounding addresses belong to other networks. Being handed two scattered pieces of a/20rather than the whole thing is what allocation looks like once a registry is working through a range in small grants. - 768 addresses is at the small end of what carries its own AS number. The point of the number is not size; it is that the addresses stay with the company when the upstream changes.
This description is AI-generated, best-effort context — not authoritative, and provided without any guarantee of accuracy. Source, and how to suggest an edit.
Interconnection
Peering at a glance
Internet exchanges
Recorded at 1 exchange in 1 country, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| Thinx IX | Warsaw, Poland | 212.91.0.221 |
Transit providers
1 upstream, 0 downstream and 1 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.
| AS | Network | Paths seen |
|---|---|---|
| AS31242 | P4 Sp. z o.o. | 178 |
Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-31, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 2 prefixes · 768 addresses IPv6 0 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| PL | Poland | 2 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- RIPE
- Handle
AS12580- Registry name
- omniTEC
- Registrant
- MNT-AS12580
- Abuse contact
- abuse@omnitec.pl
- Registered
- 1970-01-01
- Last changed
- 2025-10-15
- Allocation
- allocated
Declared
PeeringDB profile
- Name
- Omnitec
- Scope
- Not Disclosed
- Traffic ratio
- Not Disclosed
- Peering policy
- Open
- Present at
- 1 exchanges
- Facilities
- 2 facilities
- Website
- http://www.omnitec.pl
PeeringDB records are maintained by the network operator and are not independently verified. Treat them as a statement of intent rather than of fact. For the observed and recorded view, see peering, which lists the exchanges Packet Clearing House has a port on file for.
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 0% valid · 0 valid, 4 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 0 authorising AS12580
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 100% registered · 4 of 4 announcements
- Route objects
- 6 naming AS12580
Reputation
Classification and threat
Unclassified Not in the curated lists. Most of the ~80,000 allocated ASNs are not.
Spamhaus DROP
Not on ASN-DROP The network as a whole is not listed.
No DROP prefixes None of its announced space is on the DROP prefix list.
Spamhaus DROP ("Don't Route Or Peer") lists space and networks run by, or hijacked for, spam and cybercrime operations: 447 networks and 1,843 prefixes, as published 2026-11-01. A short, high-confidence list, so a match is worth taking seriously, and absence from it says little on its own.
FBI IC3
No IC3 indicators Nothing from the FBI IC3 feed.
IC3 threat data is alpha. Absence of an indicator is not evidence of good behaviour, only of absence from this one feed.
Elsewhere