asn.dev

Autonomous system

AS13287 NIXVAL NIXVAL Datacenter

Hosting RIPE

IPv4 addresses 12.80K 27 prefixes
IPv6 prefixes 22 counted as prefixes, not addresses
Countries 1 mostly ES
Exchanges 3 recorded by PCH
Upstreams 12 19 downstream
Flagged prefixes 0 none

Summary

Nixval

Spain · AI-generated

hosting transit business

Forty-five prefixes, four companies' netnames, and three sampled addresses in three unrelated domains.

What it's used for

  • The network of a Spanish datacentre operator. 13,056 addresses across twenty-four IPv4 prefixes, twenty-one IPv6 prefixes, and fifty-seven observed BGP neighbours.

Notable

  • The AS handle is NIXVAL NIXVAL Datacenter, with the name repeated.
  • Ten blocks share the single netname ES-NIXVAL-20000418; others are ES-OCCENTUS-20100715, ES-FEROZ-20130816 and ES-SATELVEX-20150709, each registered to a different company.
  • The IPv6 list under 2a02:23a0:: runs /44, /47, two /48s, /46, /45, /43, /42, /41.
  • Sampled names are mx02.perimeter.email, static-254.70.19.185.realoja.com and mi-servidor-213-162-214-254.nodenet.net.

Interesting

  • Every sampled address answered in a different domain belonging to a different party, which is what a hosting network looks like from the outside. The addresses are the operator's and the names on them are the tenants'.
  • The doubling ladder of IPv6 prefixes is the output of a tool splitting one range into the fewest legal blocks, and it fills twenty-one slots in every full routing table on the internet to describe space that was contiguous to begin with.
  • Ten separate announcements carrying one netname dated April 2000 means one old allocation broken into ten routes while keeping a single registry label. The routing table records the fragmentation and the registry does not.

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 3 exchanges in 2 countries, largest first.

ExchangeLocationTheir address
DE-CIX FrankfurtFrankfurt, Germany80.81.194.62
DE-CIX MadridMadrid, Spain185.1.192.10
ESpanix Madrid Lower LANMadrid, Spain193.149.1.30

Transit providers

12 upstream, 19 downstream and 42 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.

ASNetworkPaths seen
AS1299Arelion Sweden AB1,154
AS174Cogent Communications, LLC561
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLC484
AS3257GTT Communications Inc.406
AS34549meerfarbig GmbH & Co. KG151
AS3223Voxility LLP58
AS24482SG.GS53
AS37721Virtual Technologies & Solutions53

Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-27, 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 27 prefixes · 12.80K addresses IPv6 22 prefixes

CountryNamePrefixes
ESSpain49

Registry

Allocation record

RIPE · via Atlas (registry + RDAP)
Registry
RIPE
Handle
AS13287
Registry name
NIXVAL
Registrant
AS13287-MNT
Abuse contact
abuse@nixval.com
Registered
1970-01-01
Last changed
2025-07-24
Allocation
allocated

Routing security

RPKI and IRR

Full detail
RPKI
91% valid · 50 valid, 5 with no ROA
ROAs
31 authorising AS13287
ASPA
no ASPA record
IRR
100% registered · 55 of 55 announcements
Route objects
90 naming AS13287

Reputation

Classification and threat

Hosting Datacenter or cloud provider. Addresses are servers, not people.

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: 446 networks and 1,852 prefixes, as published 2026-10-27. 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