Organization
LACNIC
LACNIC is a registry or number-resource coordination entity in India with public network-resource records including AS14080, AS10620.
- Registry or number-resource coordination entity
- India
At a glance
- Autonomous system numberLinked with AS14080, AS10620High confidence
Basic information
- Display nameLACNICHigh confidence
- Legal nameLACNICHigh confidence
- Legal typeRegistryHigh confidence
- Registration jurisdictionIndiaHigh confidence
- HQ countryIndiaHigh confidence
- Directory categoryRegistryHigh confidence
- Last updatedJun 16, 2026High confidence
Locations
- Geography scopeIndiaHigh confidence
- Registry and RIR servicesIndiaMedium confidence
What it does
- Registry and RIR servicesIndia, Unavailable, LACNIC is linked to Registry and RIR services records in India.High confidence
Network identity
- Autonomous system numberAS14080High confidence
- Autonomous system numberAS10620High confidence
Other network resources
- Registry recordLACNIC India registry/RIR service · IndiaHigh confidence
Registry and related records
- Registry and industry relationshipRegistry record, IndiaHigh confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC’s 47-University Security Metric Leaves Its Denominator Unclear, LACNIC’s September account repeats a striking improvement in the share of Ecuadorian universities rated critically for security. The public record gives the percentages and a cohort description, but not the endpoint counts needed to reproduce the change.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC Warned About Attendee-Database Emails. That Is Not Yet a Breach Notice., A sales pitch can prove that somebody was targeted. It cannot, by itself, prove how the sender found the target. LACNIC's warning about emails offering attendee databases is useful precisely because it stops at that boundary. The next useful step is to make the changing evidence state visible without publishing the evidence itself.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC's PDP Draft Asks Which Version Receives Consensus, A policy proposal may keep one identifier while its text changes between the mailing list, the public forum, last call and the Board. LACNIC's new draft tries to make the version, rather than the proposal family, the unit named at each handoff. Its author calls this a clarification of established practice, not a change to the process. That defense deserves to be heard. So does the operator's question: when a rule can later govern an address or an ASN, can the public record show which exact text was exposed to objections before it acquired authority?Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC's ASN-Only Label Is Not a Test of Network Use, An autonomous system can have a number of its own without holding an address block of its own. That sounds like an empty network only if registration and routing are mistaken for the same activity. A LACNIC study counts 522 such organisations and observes hundreds of their ASNs and more than a thousand advertised prefixes. It also describes 306 cases outside its DFZ view. The first group shows why “ASN-Only” does not mean address-free operation; the second cannot, by itself, establish non-use.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC’s New Legacy Draft Makes Four Facts Share One Trigger, A legacy block can have current contacts, working reverse DNS and a documented right of use while disappearing from the public routing view. LAC-2026-5 would put those different facts on one path to a Board recovery decision.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC’s WHOIS Shows the Origin ASNs but Not Their Authorization Boundary, LACNIC has made origin information easier to find by allowing RPKI data to inform a WHOIS answer. A live query shows that the projection can preserve more than one authorized ASN. What it does not yet show is the evidence boundary that explains why each ASN appears, how long that answer should be trusted, or which one is actually originating a particular route.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC’s New Transfer Draft Is a Policy Map, Not a Checkbox, One sentence in LAC-2026-4 appears to ask whether two registries have compatible rules. Read closely, it asks five different questions—and leaves the most important hand-off between them undocumented.Medium confidence
- Editorial contextLACNIC Approved the Security Framework Before Measuring the Baseline. The Next Control Is a Versioned Maturity Receipt, The May board record exposes a useful sequence: authorize the framework, have outside experts measure the current state, and only then choose the destination. That order is not evidence of a security failure. It is a reason to keep approval, implementation, target-setting, residual risk and certification in separate, verifiable columns.Medium confidence
Source basis
- Public registry recordPublic registry record evidenceHigh confidence
Related research
- Primary articleLACNIC’s 47-University Security Metric Leaves Its Denominator UnclearHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC Warned About Attendee-Database Emails. That Is Not Yet a Breach Notice.High confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC's PDP Draft Asks Which Version Receives ConsensusHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC's ASN-Only Label Is Not a Test of Network UseHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s New Legacy Draft Makes Four Facts Share One TriggerHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s WHOIS Shows the Origin ASNs but Not Their Authorization BoundaryHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s New Transfer Draft Is a Policy Map, Not a CheckboxHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC Approved the Security Framework Before Measuring the Baseline. The Next Control Is a Versioned Maturity ReceiptHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s XARF Guide Counts Seven Required Fields. The Specification Lists EightHigh confidence
- Primary articleRapport Counts Outcomes Only After a Requested Test Path ExistsHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s Election Upload Test Reads Bytes, Not Excel or PDFHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s Hackathon Repo Sends Agents to an Unpinned Sibling HarnessHigh confidence
- Primary articleRapport’s Forbidden-AKI Test Starts at Barry, Not at the ValidatorHigh confidence
- Primary articleThe RIR Draft Counts 1,000 Members, Not 1,000 VotesHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s Migration Script Reuses a Volume at a Different PathHigh confidence
- Primary articleFORT’s Provider Cap Checks the Sum Before the UnionHigh confidence
- Primary articleFORT’s Snapshot Patch Changes the Rebuild, Not the Meaning of a Good HashHigh confidence
- Primary articleTwo Minutes Can Become Many in LACNIC’s Permission CacheHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC 46 Says Blocking Is Now Reactive. Its Public Agenda Does Not Show the Coding RuleHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC's Election Recovery Defaults to ALL. One Email Search Reaches Vote, Nomination and Support LinksHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC's 12,609-Organisation Electoral Roll Has No Revision ClockHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s AI Client Resolves a Model, Then Chats Without a Resolution IDHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC Asked for a Technical-Committee Charter. Its First Committee Ran the Registry.High confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC Counts 2.223 Billion BGP Messages. Its Family Table Totals 853 Million UpdatesHigh confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC Signs 150 Reverse-DNS Files. The Batch Has No Manifest.High confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC’s BGP Case Counts 368 Route Peers. The Vendor Could Not Produce a Definitive Installation List.High confidence
- Primary articleLACNIC's Open-Source Election Lookup Puts the Email Address in the Request PathHigh confidence