asn.dev

Autonomous system

AS12775 JPCINET The JPCINET Autonomous System

Unclassified RIPE

IPv4 addresses 8.70K 7 prefixes
IPv6 prefixes 1 counted as prefixes, not addresses
Countries 1 mostly GB
Exchanges 1 recorded by PCH
Upstreams 8 0 downstream
Flagged prefixes 0 none

Summary

JPC Infonet

United Kingdom · AI-generated

isp hosting business

A netname with a two-digit year — 990525 — from before the registry settled on four.

What it's used for

  • A British internet provider. 8,704 addresses across seven IPv4 prefixes, one IPv6 prefix, and 32 observed BGP neighbours.

Notable

  • Five blocks in 212.113 carry the netname UK-JPCINET-990525; one more is JPCINET-SYSM.
  • Two blocks, 46.231.164.0/23 and 46.231.166.0/24, are registered as UK-HYDRACOM-20110207 to Hydra Communications Ltd.
  • The IPv6 announcement is 2a01:5400::/32.
  • One sampled address answered, as 212-113-203-254.jpci-adsl.co.uk.

Interesting

  • 990525 is 25 May 1999 written with a two-digit year, and every other dated netname in this sweep uses four. The convention changed, and records filed before it changed were never rewritten — so the registry contains both formats side by side, forever. Anyone parsing netnames for dates has to handle a field that silently changed shape in the middle.
  • Hydra Communications blocks announced from JPC Infonet's AS, under their own registrant and their own 2011 date, is either an acquisition that never reached the registry or space carried for another operator. Both leave the same fingerprint, and only the operators know which it is.
  • jpci-adsl.co.uk in reverse DNS marks the block as consumer broadband, and it uses a different domain from the company's registry name. Access networks routinely put subscriber addresses in a separate domain, so an address's reverse name says what it does rather than who owns it.

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

Full topology · Graph

Internet exchanges

Recorded at 1 exchange in 1 country, largest first.

ExchangeLocationTheir address
London Network Access PointLondon, United Kingdom5.57.80.225

Transit providers

8 upstream, 0 downstream and 15 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.

ASNetworkPaths seen
AS3257GTT Communications Inc.186
AS25369Hydra Communications Ltd98
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLC84
AS8218Zayo Infrastructure France SA8
AS24482SG.GS8
AS48185team.blue NV8
AS50300CustodianDC Limited8
AS21396NetConnex Broadband Ltd.1

Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-19, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.

Address space

Summary

Shape and geography

IPv4 7 prefixes · 8.70K addresses IPv6 1 prefixes

CountryNamePrefixes
GBUnited Kingdom8

Registry

Allocation record

RIPE · via Atlas (registry + RDAP)
Registry
RIPE
Handle
AS12775
Registry name
JPCINET
Registrant
JPCINET-MNT
Abuse contact
helpme@cloudheroes.com
Registered
1970-01-01
Last changed
2026-09-02
Allocation
allocated

Routing security

RPKI and IRR

Full detail
RPKI
0% valid · 0 valid, 8 with no ROA 1 RPKI-invalid
ROAs
0 authorising AS12775
ASPA
no ASPA record
IRR
89% registered · 8 of 9 announcements
Route objects
8 naming AS12775

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 1,783 prefixes, as published 2026-10-20. 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

Cross-check