Summary

  • The entity BTW tracks as "Network Operation Center JSC ER-Telecom Holding Ufa branch" exists in public records as a RIPE role object, nic-hdl ERTH2-RIPE, created 2011-01-25 and last modified 2019-10-24 — not as a separately verifiable Ufa legal entity.
  • That role object's postal address is shosse Kosmonavtov 111, 614099 Perm: the parent company's Perm address, not a Ufa address. Its contact e-mail is a Ufa-named mailbox under the parent's ertelecom.ru domain, while its abuse-mailbox is registered to Dom.ru, the group's consumer brand.
  • AS51035 (UFA-AS), allocated 2011-02-02, sits under organisation ORG-RA21-RIPE — the LIR JSC "ER-Telecom Holding" (registration number 1065902028620, Perm). The Ufa branch is not a separate RIPE organisation object.
  • The IRR as-set AS-UFA is described as "CJSC "ER-Telecom Holding" Ufa branch, Ufa, Russia" and still uses the pre-2011 legal form CJSC even after a 2019-12-17 modification.
  • Routing observations show AS51035 originating roughly 73,216 IPv4 addresses across 52 IPv4 prefixes (and 5 IPv6 prefixes on one mirror), with a single upstream, AS9049 (ERTH-TRANSIT-AS), and no downstream ASNs.

The record, in one paragraph

The strongest public statement tying AS51035 to a Ufa-branch NOC is the RIPE role object ERTH2-RIPE. Two RIPE-derived mirrors reproduce it identically: the role carries the Ufa branch name, a Perm postal address, a Ufa-branded e-mail and a Dom.ru abuse-mailbox, with creation and modification timestamps of 2011 and 2019 respectively [1][2][3]. The aut-num AS51035 itself names only the parent organisation [2][7][8]. Nothing in the retained record set constitutes a Russian corporate-registry entry for a distinct Ufa legal entity.

What the routing data shows

Routing analysis describes AS51035 as "UFA-AS, RU", originating about 73,216 addresses across 52 IPv4 prefixes with zero transit and a single adjacency to AS9049, the holding's own transit AS [5][8]. This is the shape of a regional access network plugged into the group's backbone: modest footprint, no downstream customers visible from the outside, no independence. The size is consistent with a branch ISP operation, but the record proves administration, not the physical location of the staff who run it.

Where attribution becomes inference

One aggregator attributes most originated prefixes — for example 188.234.64.0/21 and 37.112.160.0/20 — to "JSC ER Telecom Holding Ufa Branch", while attributing others, such as 176.213.252.0/22 and 176.213.248.0/22, to "JSC ER Telecom Holding Nizhny Novgorod" [4]. That mix is a useful caution: aggregator route-table labels are derived inferences, not registry facts. The same ASN cannot cleanly belong to one branch if another branch's name appears against some of its prefixes. Whether this reflects genuinely shared operation across branches or simple mislabelling cannot be resolved from the retained record.

The name changed; the description did not

An older cached snapshot of the same role object reads "Network Operation Center CJSC ER-Telecom Holding Ufa branch" with an abuse-mailbox on the branch's own Ufa subdomain and a 2011-01-25 last-modified stamp [6]. The current object reads JSC and routes abuse to a mailbox on the group's consumer-brand domain [2].

Together these show two unremarkable corporate changes — a CJSC-to-JSC legal-form update and an abuse-contact migration to the group brand — and one unremarkable omission: the IRR as-set AS-UFA still describes itself as "CJSC "ER-Telecom Holding" Ufa branch" even though it was modified on 2019-12-17 [7]. Free-text descriptions are not maintained with the same discipline as legal-form fields, and that lag is now the visible residue of the rename.

Evidence boundary

Direct retrieval of the authoritative RIPE RDAP record via rdap.org was not achieved in this research pass; the bootstrap service redirects to RIPE NCC, and only generic documentation surfaced at the queried URL [1]. Every registry fact above therefore comes from third-party mirrors of the RIPE database. Those mirrors corroborate one another, but they derive from the same upstream source, so they establish consistency, not independence. Readers should treat the registry facts as reliable-with-caveat and the aggregator prefix attributions as explicitly inferential.