TWT-CUST-11460

BGP inherited
Cluster stats
Netblocks10
All fragments 47,538 blocks across 32,957 clusters
Cluster ID210310142
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
10 0 netblocks since 2026-07-05
2026-07-05 peak 10 2026-07-19

IP Ranges (10)

⬇ export CSV
CIDR Org name Registry Status Confidence
5.8.99.16/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
5.8.104.20/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
5.63.168.48/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
77.239.133.72/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
77.239.144.96/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
77.239.153.216/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
81.21.27.200/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
176.57.112.80/29 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
176.57.127.108/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low
178.236.166.184/30 TWT-CUST-11460 RIPE ASSIGNED PA ● low

Possibly related to this organisation

what's this?
Same name family
Separately-registered clusters whose names share “TWT 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 32,957 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: A how networks compare →
100.0% of checked blocks have valid RPKI ROA coverage (10 of 10)
No discrepancies found among checked blocks.

NIC Handles

DUMY-RIPE DUMY-RIPE IT-TWT-MNT