PETER-SMITH

BGP inherited
Cluster stats
Netblocks8
All fragments 12 blocks across 5 clusters
Cluster ID209277878
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
8 0 netblocks since 2026-07-05
2026-07-05 peak 8 2026-07-19

IP Ranges (8)

⬇ export CSV
CIDR Org name Registry Status Confidence
81.2.119.24/29 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
81.187.201.7/32 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
90.155.86.100/32 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
2001:8b0:fb31:acf2::/64 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED ● low
2001:8b0:fb31:acf3::/64 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED ● low
2001:8b0:fb31:acf4::/64 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED ● low
2001:8b0:fb31:acf5::/64 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED ● low
2001:8b0:fb31:acf6::/64 PETER-SMITH RIPE ASSIGNED ● low

Possibly related to this organisation

what's this?
Same name family
Separately-registered clusters whose names share “PETER SMITH” — 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.
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: A how networks compare →
100.0% of checked blocks have valid RPKI ROA coverage (8 of 8)
No discrepancies found among checked blocks.

NIC Handles

AA DUMY-RIPE DUMY-RIPE