Summary

  • RIPE records connect Regional Information Technologies Ltd., registration number 1034205032014, ORG-RA147-RIPE, four IPv4 allocations, one IPv6 allocation and AS42187; the Regit website publishes the same number, describes internet access in Kemerovo and presents leased-channel products on a separate page.
  • Those records create a reproducible administrative resource map, not evidence that a declared route is live, that paths are physically diverse, or that a particular service has a tested restoration owner and remedy.

Start with the legal join

The RIPE organisation object names Regional Information Technologies Ltd., records country RU, classifies the organisation as an LIR and publishes registration number 1034205032014. The RIPE NCC member page presents the company as a Local Internet Registry member in the Russian Federation.

The operator-maintained Regit requisites page supplies the other half of the join. It names the Russian legal entity as Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Региональные информационные технологии», gives the short name ООО «Регит» and publishes the same registration number. It also provides taxpayer identifier 4205046300, registration code 420501001 and a Kemerovo address.

The shared registration number is more useful than a loose name match. It connects the English registry identity to the Regit-branded disclosure without requiring a reader to assume that similar names describe the same company. It does not, by itself, prove the scope or performance of any service.

The resource graph is broad and specific

A RIPE inverse lookup for ORG-RA147-RIPE returns four IPv4 allocations: 185.33.120.0–185.33.123.255, 78.41.88.0–78.41.95.255, 91.190.232.0–91.190.235.255 and 94.127.92.0–94.127.95.255. It also returns the IPv6 allocation 2a01:9f00::/32 and AS42187.

The AS42187 object uses the name REGIT-AS, references ORG-RA147-RIPE and has status ASSIGNED. Its import and export lines describe intended relationships with named upstream, customer and peering ASNs. Those lines are operator-maintained routing policy. They are valuable leads for observation, not observations themselves.

The distinction matters. An allocation object records administrative responsibility for address space. An aut-num object records an autonomous-system identity and declared policy. Neither says whether a route is visible at the time of reading, which path traffic actually takes, whether two upstream labels share a physical dependency, or whether a customer's access circuit touches the listed resources at all.

Product claims need a service-specific test

Regit's internet page says the company serves individuals and legal entities in Kemerovo. It describes MetroEthernet access over existing or newly installed fibre to an NGN IP/MPLS network and advertises access speeds up to 10 Gbit/s. Its leased-channel page advertises L2, L3, VPN-MPLS and SDH channels, also up to 10 Gbit/s, including point-to-point and multi-office arrangements.

These are attributable descriptions of the offer. They do not show that a particular site can receive the advertised capacity, that two links fail independently, or that the customer has an enforceable restoration target. A useful acceptance record should therefore name the ordered product, endpoints, committed capacity, address and AS scope, physical hand-off, observed path, escalation desk, restoration owner and contractual remedy.

Turn the map into a schedule

The registry graph tells a buyer where to look again. On acceptance, record the legal entity and the exact resources used by the service. At regular intervals, compare current organisation, allocation and aut-num objects with dated route observations. After a material policy or origin change, confirm whether the customer path and support model changed with it. During a failover exercise, record not just reachability but who detected the event, who restored it and when the contractual remedy timetable began.

This approach does not convert RIPE data into an SLA. It uses stable administrative identifiers to organise evidence that must come from elsewhere. The result is a control surface: registry changes trigger questions, observed paths test declarations, and incident records test whether accountability works under pressure.

Sources