Autonomous system
AS14868 Ligga Telecomunicacoes S.A.
Unclassified LACNIC
Summary
Ligga Telecomunicações
isp telecom infrastructure
The reverse names cite an RFC number to say an address is shared, and the netnames are nothing but ticket numbers.
What it's used for
- A Brazilian broadband operator. 86,016 addresses across 20 IPv4 prefixes plus three IPv6 prefixes, with 91 observed BGP neighbours.
Notable
- Every netname is a bare number:
227969,3691,136211,168917,24260,506382,506383,506387,506388,245934. - All of them register to
LIGGA SERVICOS EM TELECOM, some withS.A.appended and some without. - Ten of eighteen sampled addresses returned a name, under two domains:
liggatelecom.com.brandcopelfibra.com.br. - The names mark the line type as
staticordynamic, and some insertrfc6598before it. - The three IPv6 prefixes are
2001:1284::/32,2804:182c::/32and2804:39e8::/32. - The registry lookup for
177.220.128.0/18failed.
Interesting
rfc6598names the document that reserved a range for carrier-grade address sharing. Putting it in a hostname tells anyone who looks that the customer behind the address does not have it to themselves: the most precise way to say so, and the least likely to be understood.- Netnames made only of digits are registry ticket numbers, kept because they are unique rather than because they mean anything. The registry identifies these blocks perfectly and describes them not at all.
- Two domains answer across the same address space, one naming a different brand. The reverse zones were migrated block by block and the migration is unfinished.
- Ninety-one neighbours against 86,016 addresses is far more adjacency than the address count suggests, which is what happens when peering locally beats buying transit.
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 6 exchanges in 1 country, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| IX.br (PTT.br) São Paulo | São Paulo, Brazil | 187.16.222.185 |
| IX.br (PTT.br) Curitiba | Curitiba, Brazil | 45.184.146.6 |
| IX.br (PTT.br) Maringá | Maringá, Brazil | 187.16.201.16 |
| IX.br (PTT.br) Londrina | Londrina, Brazil | 200.219.144.11 |
| IX.br (PTT.br) Foz do Iguaçu | Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil | 187.16.204.13 |
| UEPG Internet Exchange | Ponta Grossa, Brazil | 45.186.143.28 |
Transit providers
8 upstream, 60 downstream and 101 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 20 prefixes · 86.02K addresses IPv6 3 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| BR | Brazil | 23 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- LACNIC
- Handle
14868- Registry name
- ASN14868
- Registrant
- LIGGA SERVICOS EM TELECOM S.A.
- Abuse contact
- Administrador de Dominios Ligga Telecom
- Registered
- 2000-03-22
- Last changed
- 2026-08-12
- Allocation
- allocated
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 100% valid · 82 valid, 0 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 23 authorising AS14868
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 73% registered · 60 of 82 announcements
- Route objects
- 154 naming AS14868
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