Autonomous system
AS58065 PACKETEXCHANGE
Unclassified APNIC
Interconnection
Peering at a glance
Internet exchanges
Recorded at 3 exchanges in 3 countries, largest first.
| Exchange | Location | Their address |
|---|---|---|
| DE-CIX Mumbai | Mumbai, India | 103.27.171.44 |
| LayerSwitch Internet Exchange | The Hague, Netherlands | 185.1.32.123 |
| Tallinn Governmental Internet Exchange | Tallinn, Estonia | 213.184.52.231 |
Transit providers
9 upstream, 1 downstream and 16 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 2026-10-16, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Transit is inferred from observed BGP paths, never declared by either party.
Address space
Summary
IPv4 243 prefixes · 101K addresses IPv6 7 prefixes
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| GB | United Kingdom | 250 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- APNIC
- Handle
AS58065- Registry name
- PacketExchange
- Registrant
- mnt-packetxchange3
- Abuse contact
- abuse@packetexchange.org
- Registered
- 2018-03-19
- Last changed
- 2026-09-14
- Allocation
- allocated
Routing security
RPKI and IRR
- RPKI
- 15% valid · 59 valid, 345 with no ROA
- ROAs
- 64 authorising AS58065
- ASPA
- no ASPA record
- IRR
- 98% registered · 396 of 404 announcements 4 other origin
- Route objects
- 833 naming AS58065
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 2026-10-17. 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