MTU-CUST-F3752E90

BGP inherited
Cluster stats
Netblocks7
All fragments 5,525 blocks across 4,928 clusters
Cluster ID209234455
RegistryRIPE
Customersfind customers using this network →
Evidence & provenance ?
Attribution BGP parent (inherited)
Shared handles clustered on 3 shared RIR contact/maintainer handles
Registry names 1 distinct registrant name across these blocks
full provenance (JSON) → · how attribution works

Footprint over time

5 weekly snapshots · JSON
7 0 netblocks since 2026-07-05
2026-07-05 peak 7 2026-07-19

IP Ranges (7)

⬇ export CSV
CIDR Org name Registry Status Confidence
62.5.208.248/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
62.5.240.192/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
62.5.241.0/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
62.5.241.80/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
62.5.241.152/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
81.195.78.176/29 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
81.195.118.232/30 MTU-CUST-F3752E90 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low

Possibly related to this organisation

what's this?
Same name family
Separately-registered clusters whose names share “MTU CUST” — often per-country or per-system registrations of the same brand, occasionally a different organisation sharing the name. Not counted in this organisation's own footprint.
Combined view of all 4,928 name-family clusters →
Sub-allocations under carriers
IP blocks an ISP reassigned to a similarly-named customer — decoded from the ISP's own naming convention, not a direct registration.

Network trust

what's this?
RPKI hygiene: D how networks compare →
28.6% of checked blocks have valid RPKI ROA coverage (2 of 7)
No discrepancies found among checked blocks.

NIC Handles

DUMY-RIPE DUMY-RIPE MTU-NOC