asn.dev

Observed topology

AS201434 CITYSTRADAPL-AS

Upstreams 7 carry this network
Downstreams 6 this network carries
Adjacent (IPv4) 12
Adjacent (IPv6) 7

Transit

Upstream networks

inferred

Networks observed carrying traffic for AS201434: the AS immediately before it in a routing path. Ranked by how many paths showed the relationship, which reflects how widely it is used, not how much traffic crosses it.

ASNetworkTypeFamiliesPaths seen
AS20853eTOP sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv4 IPv6197
AS3257GTT Communications Inc.TransitIPv4 IPv6108
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLCTransitIPv4 IPv678
AS57463NetIX Communications JSCUnclassifiedIPv46
AS24482SG.GSHostingIPv4 IPv66
AS205268Diomar sp. z o.o.HostingIPv43
AS24748Atman Sp. z o.o.HostingIPv41

Inferred from path position, not from any declaration by either party. A network appearing here is carrying these routes; whether that is a paid transit arrangement, a backup, or something else is not something routing data can tell you.

Transit

Downstream networks

inferred

Networks for which AS201434 was observed as the last hop before the origin, meaning it appears to provide them transit.

ASNetworkTypeFamiliesPaths seen
AS346006G Networks Sp. z o. o.UnclassifiedIPv4 IPv6278
AS202431M.G. System Sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv461
AS31628Getfiber Sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv445
AS2112344VOD Sp z o. o.UnclassifiedIPv47
AS205268Diomar sp. z o.o.HostingIPv43
AS204797Jamitel sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv41

Adjacency

Adjacent networks

21 shown

Every AS seen directly next to AS201434 in a routing path, in either direction.

ASNetworkTypeFamiliesPaths seen
AS20853eTOP sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv4 IPv6414
AS346006G Networks Sp. z o. o.UnclassifiedIPv4 IPv6278
AS3257GTT Communications Inc.TransitIPv4 IPv6228
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLCTransitIPv4 IPv6137
AS202431M.G. System Sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv461
AS31628Getfiber Sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv445
AS24482SG.GSHostingIPv4 IPv611
AS57463NetIX Communications JSCUnclassifiedIPv410
AS2112344VOD Sp z o. o.UnclassifiedIPv47
AS205268Diomar sp. z o.o.HostingIPv4 IPv67
AS24748Atman Sp. z o.o.HostingIPv4 IPv62
AS204797Jamitel sp. z o.o.UnclassifiedIPv41

Adjacency is not the same as peering. Being next to each other in a path covers paid transit, settlement-free peering and customer connections alike, and routing data cannot distinguish them. Treat this as "these networks exchange routes", nothing more specific.

Interconnection

Exchange presence

recorded

Internet exchanges where Packet Clearing House has a port recorded for AS201434, largest fabric first. An exchange is shared switching where networks interconnect directly rather than paying a transit provider to carry traffic between them, so turning up at one is a deliberate choice about how this network wants to be reached. Each name opens that exchange's own page, with its peering LANs and every other network recorded on it. Recorded at 1 exchange across 1 country and 1 region.

ExchangeLocationTheir addressMember ports
Thinx IXWarsaw, Poland212.91.0.143192

Unlike the tables above, this is recorded rather than inferred. An address on a peering LAN is at that exchange by definition. Two carve-outs all the same. Member ports counts every participant at the exchange, not this network's ports, so read it as a size proxy. And an absent exchange means PCH has no record of it, not that the network is not there.

Provenance

Where this comes from

Derived from routing tables collected at 2026-08-08 10:00 UTC by route-views2,rrc00, as seen from 75 BGP vantage points across 74.02M route entries. These are observations from those vantage points, not a complete or authoritative view of the internet.

Cross-check against RIPEstat or BGP.tools, which observe from a different and larger set of vantage points.

Exchange presence comes from a separate dataset: the directory collected 2026-08-09 by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data), covering 1,327 exchanges and 93,164 recorded member ports, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

PeeringDB is the better-known directory and is deliberately not the source here: its acceptable-use policy forbids the bulk storage this needs. The two answer different questions anyway. PeeringDB reports what an operator declares about itself; this reports what PCH has recorded.