asn.dev

Autonomous system

AS43513 NANO-AS

Unclassified APNIC NSP

IPv4 addresses 63.74K 53 prefixes
IPv6 prefixes 20 counted as prefixes, not addresses
Countries 1 mostly LV
Exchanges 2 recorded by PCH
Upstreams 4 4 downstream
Flagged prefixes 0 none

Summary

Nano IT

Latvia · AI-generated

hosting datacenter latvia

NANO-AS is operated by Sia Nano IT.

What it's used for

  • The address space carries hosting and data center infrastructure, evidenced by netnames such as LV-NANO-20050628 and reverse DNS entries like subnet.camelhost.lv.
  • The AS announces 63,744 IPv4 addresses across 53 prefixes and 20 IPv6 prefixes, while maintaining only 10 observed neighbours, a ratio indicative of a hosting or data center provider rather than a transit carrier.
  • Traffic from this AS consists of web hosting, domain services, and IT outsourcing endpoints for customers utilizing Nano IT's data center facilities in Riga.

Notable

  • Registrants for the majority of prefixes, including 86.63.160.0/19 and 80.250.48.0/20, are listed as Sia Nano IT or NANO IT network operation center, aligning with the AS holder.
  • The inventory is composed of numerous /21 and /22 blocks, reflecting a segmented allocation typical of a large-scale hosting provider managing diverse customer subnets.

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 2 exchanges in 2 countries, largest first.

ExchangeLocationTheir address
Baltic Internet ExchangeVilnius, Lithuania77.241.206.84
Santa Monica Internet Local ExchangeRiga, Latvia195.246.227.22

Transit providers

4 upstream, 4 downstream and 13 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.

ASNetworkPaths seen
AS9002RETN Limited1,773
AS2588SIA "BITE Latvija"872
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLC458
AS12578SIA Tet193

Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-11, 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 53 prefixes · 63.74K addresses IPv6 20 prefixes

CountryNamePrefixes
LVLatvia73

Registry

Allocation record

APNIC · via Atlas (registry + RDAP)
Registry
APNIC
Handle
AS43513
Registry name
NANO-AS
Registrant
NANO-MNT
Abuse contact
abuse@nano.lv
Registered
2007-08-14
Last changed
2018-09-04
Allocation
allocated

Declared

PeeringDB profile

self-reported
Name
Nano IT
Network type
NSP
Scope
Europe
Traffic ratio
Mostly Inbound
Peering policy
Open
IRR as-set
AS-NANOIT
Present at
1 exchanges
Facilities
2 facilities
Website
http://www.nano.lv

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

Full detail
RPKI
19% valid · 11 valid, 48 with no ROA
ROAs
15 authorising AS43513
ASPA
no ASPA record
IRR
100% registered · 59 of 59 announcements
Route objects
66 naming AS43513

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: 432 networks and 1,768 prefixes, as published 2026-10-12. A short, high-confidence list, so a match is worth taking seriously, and absence from it says little on its own.

FBI IC3

1 IC3 indicators addresses in this network appear in FBI IC3 cybersecurity advisories.

PrefixAdvisoryPublished
188.92.78.242"First VPN Service" Used by Ransomware Actors to Compromise Systems2026-05-21

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