asn.dev

Autonomous system

AS8330 LONAP LONAP Network AS8330 Policy

Unclassified RIPE

IPv4 addresses 2.30K 2 prefixes
IPv6 prefixes 1 counted as prefixes, not addresses
Countries 1 mostly GB
Exchanges 1 recorded by PCH
Upstreams 8 0 downstream
Flagged prefixes 0 none

Summary

LONAP

United Kingdom · AI-generated

ixp network legacy

LONAP is LONAP Ltd, the London Network Access Point — a member-owned internet exchange point in London. This AS number is the exchange's own network AS, used for the IXP's route servers, management systems and peering-LAN infrastructure.

What it's used for

  • Running the exchange itself: route servers that let members exchange routes with each other, plus the AS8330 management network. Router interfaces carry lonap.net reverse DNS such as vlanNNN-gw.lonap.net.
  • Addressing for the peering LANs and member-facing IP space. Much of the announced /22-scale range carries placeholder rDNS (ipNN-NNN.no-dns-yet.lonap.net), which is what an exchange's unassigned or newly-assigned member addressing looks like.
  • LONAP has many BGP neighbours because its members peer across it, not because it sells transit. It is deliberately not a transit provider.

Notable

  • An IXP has no honest kind in this vocabulary, so it is left unclassified. It is not hosting, not an ISP, not an eyeball network and not transit. It is shared switching fabric between other networks, and forcing it into a bucket would poison any classifier that consumed it.
  • Traffic observed on LONAP's peering LAN belongs to its members. An address on the exchange fabric identifies a member's router port, not LONAP the company.

Interesting

  • LONAP is one of the UK's long-running member-owned exchanges, and its low AS number reflects a founding in the era when London's peering landscape was being built out. Its neighbour count is a function of its members, not of any customer cone.

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 1 exchange in 1 country, largest first.

ExchangeLocationTheir address
London Network Access PointLondon, United Kingdom5.57.80.250

Transit providers

8 upstream, 0 downstream and 13 adjacent networks observed; most-used upstreams first.

ASNetworkPaths seen
AS6939Hurricane Electric LLC127
AS44684Mythic Beasts Ltd23
AS5413Wavenet Limited6
AS3170VeloxServ Communications Ltd5
AS24482SG.GS3
AS48185team.blue NV3
AS3213Bogons Ltd2
AS50300CustodianDC Limited1

Exchange presence is recorded rather than inferred: the directory collected by Packet Clearing House (https://www.pch.net/ixp/data) on 2026-10-14, 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 2 prefixes · 2.30K addresses IPv6 1 prefixes

CountryNamePrefixes
GBUnited Kingdom3

Registry

Allocation record

RIPE · via Atlas (registry + RDAP)
Registry
RIPE
Handle
AS8330
Registry name
LONAP
Registrant
AS8330-AUTO-MNT
Abuse contact
abuse@lonap.net
Registered
2002-07-04
Last changed
2026-10-08
Allocation
allocated

Routing security

RPKI and IRR

Full detail
RPKI
100% valid · 3 valid, 0 with no ROA
ROAs
5 authorising AS8330
ASPA
no ASPA record
IRR
100% registered · 3 of 3 announcements
Route objects
5 naming AS8330

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 1,773 prefixes, as published 2026-10-13. 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

Cross-check