Summary

  • XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY holds APNIC registration AS142199 (XEONFIBER1-AS-AP), while a separately named XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED holds APNIC registration AS153870 (IRINN-XEON123-AS-IN) with different maintainers, an abuse contact on a different mail domain, and a different named contact person.
  • Routing aggregators directly contradict one another on live routing: IPinfo classifies AS153870 as "Inactive" with zero addresses, while CIDR Report shows the same ASN with nine adjacencies and three originated /24 prefixes.
  • The Indian corporate registry record matching the name, Xeonfiber Technology Private Limited, carries CIN activity code U72900 — "other computer-related activities" — which is not a telecom licensing category.
  • No inspected source proves ownership of physical fiber, facilities, or a customer base; first-party service listings are marketing claims.

The first thing the public record shows about XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY is that the name is not one network registration but two. APNIC lists AS142199 under the autonomous-system name XEONFIBER1-AS-AP with the description "XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY, IN," organization ORG-XT8-AP, and an organization type of LIR in India; the CIDR Report view of that ASN lists a single upstream adjacency, AS62610 (Zenlayer Inc, US), and historically observed originating prefixes 46.18.90.0/24, 95.134.48.0/24 and 169.40.58.0/24, together 768 addresses CIDR Report AS142199. A directory entry from IPGeolocation.io for the same ASN reports zero IPv4 routes and zero IPv6 routes at its observation time while still classifying the ASN type as ISP — a snapshot-level contradiction with the three originated prefixes CIDR Report lists IPGeolocation AS142199. Neither snapshot is a verdict; both are views taken at different times from different vantage points.

The second lineage is registered under a different corporate name. AS153870 is registered in APNIC as IRINN-XEON123-AS-IN with the holder named XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, country IN, maintainers MAINT-IN-XEON123 and MAINT-IN-IRINN, and an IRT object IRT-XEON123-IN; the record's admin and technical contact is SHOAIB SHAIKH at an address in Dhanori, Pune 411015, with an abuse contact on a personal mailbox under the gmail.com domain rather than any company domain IPIP.NET whois mirror AS153870. The same record details are reproduced in an independent whois mirror of the APNIC entry, which also shows an IRT last-modified timestamp of 27 July 2026 ping.pe whois AS153870. IPGeolocation.io's page for AS153870 likewise lists the AS name IRINN-XEON123-AS-IN under organization XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, country IN IPGeolocation AS153870. What matters here is the divergence from the AS142199 record: different maintainer objects, a different abuse mailbox domain, and a different named person. The shared company name is the only visible link between the two registrations, and no inspected source confirms that link.

On whether AS153870 routes anything, the aggregators disagree in a way that cannot be smoothed over. IPinfo's page for AS153870 lists the holder as XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, registry APNIC, allocated 7 May 2025 and updated 27 September 2025, and classifies the ASN type as "Inactive" with zero IPv4 addresses, zero IPv6 addresses, no hosted domains, and no peers, upstreams or downstreams IPinfo AS153870. CIDR Report's view of the same ASN shows the opposite: nine adjacencies, one upstream (AS17762, Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd, India), eight downstream networks, and three observed originating /24 prefixes — 103.49.167.0/24, 103.171.55.0/24 and 160.30.84.0/24, totalling 768 addresses CIDR Report AS153870. A zero-address "Inactive" classification and a nine-adjacency active-routing view are not different interpretations of the same data; they are incompatible pictures of the same network, which is exactly the situation where a reader should distrust any single aggregator and ask what each one actually observes and when.

The address-space picture is equally tangled. IpToolsKit attributes eleven IP ranges totalling 767 IPv4 addresses to "Xeonfiber Technology Private," spanning India and Singapore with cities including Pune, Mumbai and Singapore; its examples include 103.171.55.0/24 geolocated to Pune and an address in 160.30.84.0/24 geolocated to Singapore IpToolsKit. Ipregistry, by contrast, attributes zero IPv4 ranges to AS153870 while listing the IPv6 block 2001:df5:81c0::/48 under XEONFIBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED and a second block, 2001:df6:fc0::/48, under a different company, NETFEVER TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED Ipregistry. The Singapore geolocation deserves particular caution: geolocation databases frequently infer country from hosting or transit location, and a Singapore-located address on an India-registered ASN is more plausibly a hosting or aggregation artifact than evidence of an owned presence there. No first-party or registry source inspected for this report corroborates a Singapore operation.

The corporate registration behind the longer name is documented, but not as a telecom operator. MyCorporateInfo, an aggregator of Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs data, lists Xeonfiber Technology Private Limited as ACTIVE under CIN U72900PN2021PTC205487, RoC-Pune, incorporated 23 October 2021, class Private limited by shares, with a registered office at Gokul Nagar, Dhanori, Pune 411015 — the same Dhanori address that appears in the APNIC records for AS153870 MyCorporateInfo. The activity code embedded in that CIN, U72900, corresponds to "other computer-related activities," not to a licensed telecom (ISP) category, so the corporate record by itself establishes no operator authorization. A second aggregator, Address Adda, shows the same CIN but a different incorporation date, 10 November 2022 — an unresolved discrepancy between two third-party mirrors of the same registration Address Adda. Neither source is the primary MCA record, and neither was directly inspected at the registry itself for this report.

The first-party presentation of the name comes from xeonfibertech.com, which describes Xeonfiber Technology as a Pune-based internet and network solutions company at an address in Wanwadi, Pune 411040, and lists FTTH, Internet Leased Line, Enterprise Broadband, SD-WAN, VPN, SIP trunk and managed-services offerings xeonfibertech.com. Three things should be said plainly about that page. First, it is marketing: service listings are claims about what the company offers, not evidence of what it delivers. Second, its address (Wanwadi 411040) differs from the Dhanori 411015 address in both the APNIC records for AS153870 and the corporate registry entry, and the report makes no assumption about whether these describe the same operating footprint. Third, a separate first-party brand using the near-identical name "Xeon Fiber" at a different domain and a third Pune address surfaced in the research pass for this report but is not part of its verified source set, and no verified link between that brand and either registration lineage exists.

Set against prior coverage, the picture this report adds is specific. Earlier BTW analysis of AS142199 established that the ASN stayed in the APNIC registry after its visible route went quiet: RIPEstat had recorded 169.40.58.0/24 first observed on 13 June 2026 and last observed on 29 June 2026, and at the 31 July 2026 observation point no RIS peers saw announcements, no address space was announced, and no neighbours were observed. That article cautioned, correctly, that registry presence does not prove ownership of address space, physical fiber, or facilities.

What is new here is the second registration lineage under the PRIVATE LIMITED corporate name with distinct maintainers and contacts, the direct IPinfo-versus-CIDR-Report contradiction on whether AS153870 routes, the CIN record whose activity code is not a telecom licensing category, and the presence of two separate first-party brands with no verified link.

The honest conclusion is narrow. The public record establishes that two same-named registrations exist in APNIC, that they carry different administrative identities, that third-party routing data about both is mutually contradictory, and that the corporate registry entry behind the name does not itself evidence a telecom license. It does not establish that any fiber plant exists, that any customer is served, or that either ASN operates a live network today. Every one of those stronger claims would require evidence the aggregators and mirrors inspected here cannot supply.