Autonomous system
AS12958 MCC T2 Mobile LLC
Unclassified RIPE
Summary
T2 Mobile
mobile telecom isp
A mobile network of 52,992 addresses where not one of them answers to a name.
What it's used for
- The network of a Russian mobile operator. 52,992 addresses across 12 IPv4 prefixes, 38 observed BGP neighbours, and no IPv6 announced.
Notable
- Most blocks carry the netname
T2RU-SUBSCRIBER-POOL-NET, repeated identically across five of them. - Two others are
RU-CELLULAR-20080103andRU-CELLULAR-20120926. - The registry lookup for
46.237.40.0/22failed, so nothing here describes that block's record. - The AS handle is
MCC T2 Russia Network. - Eighteen addresses were sampled and none returned a name.
Interesting
- Another mobile carrier in this same range answers fifteen of eighteen sampled addresses with names that declare whether the subscriber is behind carrier NAT, on ordinary mobile internet, or on a static address. This one answers none. Both operate the same kind of network at a similar scale, and the difference is entirely a decision about whether the outside world should be able to tell anything about traffic coming from you.
- Publishing subscriber classification helps receiving networks handle mobile traffic sensibly. Withholding it makes the whole range opaque. Neither is wrong, but the choice is visible in the data.
SUBSCRIBER-POOL-NETnames the function rather than the location or the batch, and the same netname on five separate blocks means the registry has no way to tell them apart. Whoever maintains this uses a template and does not treat netnames as an identifier.- No IPv6 at all from a mobile network, where it is usually deployed earliest.
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
No exchange port on file. Many exchanges publish no participant list, so this is not proof of absence.
Transit providers
11 upstream, 1 downstream and 12 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 2026-11-02, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 17 prefixes · 56.32K addresses IPv6 0 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| RU | Russian Federation | 17 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- RIPE
- Handle
AS12958- Registry name
- MCC
- Registrant
- T2 Mobile LLC
- Abuse contact
- abuse_ripe@t2.ru
- Registered
- 2002-08-06
- Last changed
- 2024-11-19
- Allocation
- allocated
Declared
PeeringDB profile
- Name
- T2 Russia Network
- Also known as
- ex-Tele2 Russia Network
- Traffic ratio
- Mostly Inbound
- Peering policy
- Selective
- IRR as-set
RIPE::AS-T2RU-MR-MOSCOW- Present at
- 1 exchanges
- Website
- https://msk.t2.ru/
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
- 18% valid · 4 valid, 18 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 4 authorising AS12958
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 100% registered · 22 of 22 announcements
- Route objects
- 46 naming AS12958
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: 448 networks and 1,851 prefixes, as published 2026-11-03. 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