bgpreport

Network · data from 2026-11-12

AS132833 CHINANET-ANHUI-WUHU-NEWIDC - China Telecom

Registry name: CHINANET-ANHUI-WUHU-NEWIDC - China Telecom, CN · not in PeeringDB

1IPv4 routes 100.0% RPKI valid · 100.0% with a route object
2IPv6 routes 100.0% RPKI valid · 100.0% with a route object
0RPKI invalid 0 origin · 0 maxLength
0No ROA 0 with no route object for this origin
0Low visibility seen by under 10% of full-table peers
1Route objects not announced registered with origin AS132833, seen from no peer

Announced routes

Every prefix a peer of the route collectors sees with origin AS132833, things to look at first. Visibility = full-table peers that see it, of 673 (IPv4) and 636 (IPv6) on 75 collectors. Also as routes.csv.
223.247.112.0/20 Valid Other IRR onlyRADB 671 100% 67
240e:6:d120::/48 Valid Other IRR onlyRADB 636 100% 68
240e:958:2300::/48 Valid Other IRR onlyRADB 636 100% 68

AS-SET

AS132833 isn't in PeeringDB, where networks name their AS-SET.

Fix list

The changes that would bring RPKI, the IRR and what's announced into line. Some are deliberate (a route object kept for a backup route, say); the network decides. All 4 are in fix.csv.

  • Route object: RIR3
  • Route object: not announced1
ChangePrefix or setDetailFull-table peers
Route object: RIR223.247.112.0/20Route object only in RADB. Add it in the RIR database for the space.671 of 673
Route object: RIR240e:6:d120::/48Route object only in RADB. Add it in the RIR database for the space.636 of 636
Route object: RIR240e:958:2300::/48Route object only in RADB. Add it in the RIR database for the space.636 of 636

Route objects not announced

Route objects with origin AS132833 whose prefix no peer sees AS132833 announce. Many are kept on purpose (backup routes, space announced only in some places).

240e:6:d120::/44RADBNo ROA

Routes: the 08:00 UTC snapshots of 2026-11-12 from 75 RIPE RIS and RouteViews collectors. RPKI: our rpki-client run before the snapshot. IRR: the day's dumps of the five RIR databases and RADB's mirrors. The LEVEL3 and IDNIC databases publish no dump and aren't read, so route objects only there count as none.