Autonomous system
AS12759 SOCO-AS Nordstrasse 102
Unclassified RIPE
Summary
SoftCom Datensysteme (SOCO)
isp hosting business
A sole trader with 25,600 addresses, 128 BGP neighbours, and a street address in the AS handle.
What it's used for
- A German access and hosting provider. 25,600 addresses across four IPv4 prefixes, one IPv6 prefix, and 128 observed BGP neighbours.
Notable
- Three
/19s —78.153.64.0,188.126.160.0,212.16.224.0— plus one/22. - The registry holder reads
Stephan Fuss trading as SoftCom Datensysteme. - The AS handle is
SOCO-AS Nordstrasse 102. - Dated netnames run
DE-SOCO-20070629,DE-SOCO-20090723andDE-SOCO-20151127. - The RDAP lookup for
212.16.224.0/19failed, so its registration was not retrieved. - Reverse names carry the address backwards:
78.153.72.0answers as0-72-153-78.dynamic-ip.soco.net, and the suffixes split intodynamic-ip.soco.net,static-ip.soco.netandsoco-dsl.de.
Interesting
Nordstrasse 102is a postal address that ended up in the AS handle field. Somebody filled in a form with the street line where the name went, and it has been the network's public label ever since, because changing an AS name means touching records other operators have already written into their filters.- 128 neighbours is a serious peering footprint, and it sits under a registration that names an individual person trading under a business name rather than a company. The registry records legal form, not scale.
- The reverse names run the octets in the order
in-addr.arpauses rather than the order the address is written in, which is the giveaway that the zone file was generated from the delegation itself rather than from a list of addresses.
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 10 exchanges in 3 countries, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| DE-CIX Frankfurt | Frankfurt, Germany | 80.81.195.10 |
| LINX LON1 | London, United Kingdom | 195.66.225.75 |
| AMS-IX Amsterdam | Amsterdam, Netherlands | 80.249.209.59 |
| Neutral Internet Exchange | Amsterdam, Netherlands | 193.239.118.110 |
| KleyReX Internet Exchange | Frankfurt, Germany | 193.189.82.52 |
| DE-CIX Dusseldorf | Düsseldorf, Germany | 185.1.170.219 |
| Megaport Dusseldorf IX | Düsseldorf, Germany | 194.146.118.28 |
| Megaport Hamburg IX | Hamburg, Germany | 193.42.155.24 |
Transit providers
25 upstream, 0 downstream and 35 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.
Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-15, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 4 prefixes · 25.60K addresses IPv6 1 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| DE | Germany | 5 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- RIPE
- Handle
AS12759- Registry name
- SOCO-AS
- Registrant
- Stephan Fuss trading as SoftCom Datensysteme
- Abuse contact
- technik@softcom.de
- Registered
- 2002-09-18
- Last changed
- 2024-07-22
- Allocation
- allocated
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 100% valid · 6 valid, 0 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 7 authorising AS12759
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 100% registered · 6 of 6 announcements
- Route objects
- 9 naming AS12759
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: 442 networks and 1,781 prefixes, as published 2026-10-16. 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