Autonomous system
AS53610 METRO-COMMUNICATIONS-COMPANY
Unclassified ARIN
Interconnection
Peering at a glance
Internet exchanges
Recorded at 4 exchanges in 1 country, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| Equinix Internet Exchange Chicago | Chicago, United States | 208.115.137.11 |
| DE-CIX Chicago | Chicago, United States | 149.112.11.23 |
| Kansas City Internet Exchange | Kansas City, United States | 206.51.7.164 |
| United IX Chicago | Chicago, United States | 206.41.110.30 |
Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-19, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 19 prefixes · 83.97K addresses IPv6 1 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| US | United States of America | 20 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- ARIN
- Handle
AS53610- Registry name
- METRO-COMMUNICATIONS-COMPANY
- Registrant
- Metro Communications Company
- Abuse contact
- IPabuse@metrocomm.com
- Registered
- 2010-08-10
- Last changed
- 2026-08-31
- Allocation
- assigned
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 84% valid · 16 valid, 3 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 42 authorising AS53610
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 100% registered · 19 of 19 announcements
- Route objects
- 86 naming AS53610
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: 442 networks and 1,783 prefixes, as published 2026-10-20. 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