Autonomous system
AS8901 Moscow Mayors Office
Unclassified RIPE
Summary
Moscow Mayor's Office (GKU Mosgortelecom)
government legacy
AS8901 is held by GKU "Mosgortelecom" — a *gosudarstvennoye kazyonnoye
uchrezhdeniye*, a state institution of the City of Moscow — and is widely labelled
the Moscow Mayor's Office network. It carries the municipal government's
Internet presence.
What it's used for
- Public-facing and administrative networking for Moscow's city government: the
mos.ruestate and the departments behind it. Sampled rDNS returnsns1.mos.ru, and the abuse contact isnoc@mos.ru. - This is government infrastructure, not a commercial ISP. There are no subscriber pools in the inventory.
Notable
- About 8.4k IPv4 addresses across roughly 33 prefixes, mostly
/24s carved from a legacy212.11.128.0/19plus185.173.0.0/22and a few strays. - Only a handful of observed BGP neighbours, and the upstreams are the Russian incumbents (Rostelecom, MegaFon, Comcor) — a consumer of transit, not a provider.
Interesting
- The AS number dates from 1998, making the Moscow city administration one of the earlier municipal governments anywhere to run its own autonomous system rather than sit behind a telco.
- An address here should be read as city-government infrastructure — a poor geolocation target for anything user-facing, since the residents of Moscow are not on this network.
This description is AI-generated, best-effort context — not authoritative, and provided without any guarantee of accuracy. Source, and how to suggest an edit.
Address space
Summary
| Country | Name | Prefixes |
|---|---|---|
| RU | Russian Federation | 17 |
Registry
Allocation record
- Registry
- RIPE
- Handle
AS8901- Registry name
- UNSPECIFIED
- Registrant
- AS8901-MNT
- Abuse contact
- noc@mos.ru
- Registered
- 1970-01-01
- Last changed
- 2024-03-26
- Status
- active
Reputation
Classification and threat
Unclassified Not in the curated lists. Most of the ~80,000 allocated ASNs are not.
No IC3 indicators Nothing from the FBI IC3 feed.
Threat data is alpha. Absence of an indicator is not evidence of good behaviour, only of absence from this one feed.
Elsewhere