Autonomous system
AS14371 PBNET
Unclassified ARIN
Summary
Paul Bunyan Communications
isp telecom infrastructure
The reverse names encode an address in letters instead of digits, and the letter advances one step for every step of the third octet.
What it's used for
- A rural cooperative's broadband network. 36,096 addresses across ten IPv4 prefixes plus one IPv6 prefix,
2600:6400::/28, with 22 observed BGP neighbours.
Notable
- Eight blocks carry netnames running
PBTL-100throughPBTL-107, registered toPaul Bunyan Communications, the older ones alongsidePaul Bunyan Telephone. - The remaining two belong to other companies:
AFTERNORTHtoAfterNorthandNET-BRECKtoBRECKENRIDGE SKI CORPORATION. - Thirteen of eighteen sampled addresses returned a name, nearly all of the form
jc0.ips.PaulBunyan.net,jd255.ips.PaulBunyan.net,jf254.ips.PaulBunyan.net. - Two addresses answer under a different domain entirely:
65-18-205-0.a51.co.
Interesting
- Compare
jc0at66.171.42.0withjd255at66.171.43.255andjf254at66.171.45.254. The trailing digits are the final octet and the letter walks forward as the third octet does, so the whole address is recoverable from a label of four characters. It is the address written in a shorter alphabet. - The same trick runs across every block with its own starting pair, which is why one zone contains
ey254,fh255,gaf255andic254without collision. - The domain is spelled two ways in the same zone, capitalised in most labels and lowercase in one. DNS does not care, but anything doing a string comparison downstream will.
- Sequential netnames from
PBTL-100upward are a cooperative that numbered its allocations as they arrived and never renumbered. The ski corporation's/24is what a small ISP looks like when it routes a neighbour's block as a favour.
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 7 exchanges in 1 country, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| Seattle Internet Exchange | Seattle, United States | 206.81.81.139 |
| Fremont Cabal Internet Exchange | Fremont, United States | 206.80.238.56 |
| Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange | Minneapolis, United States | 206.108.255.119 |
| Interconnection eXchange Denver | Denver, United States | 206.53.175.207 |
| Kansas City Internet Exchange | Kansas City, United States | 206.51.7.68 |
| Quad Cities Internet Exchange | Davenport, United States | 206.83.43.13 |
| Twin Ports Internet Exchange | Duluth, United States | 206.223.125.33 |
Transit providers
8 upstream, 5 downstream and 18 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 2026-10-10, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 10 prefixes · 36.10K addresses IPv6 1 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| US | United States of America | 11 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- ARIN
- Registered
- 1999-12-03
- Allocation
- assigned
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 85% valid · 11 valid, 2 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 12 authorising AS14371
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 100% registered · 13 of 13 announcements
- Route objects
- 48 naming AS14371
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: 431 networks and 1,775 prefixes, as published 2026-10-11. 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