On Wed, 28 Jan 2026, Mike via NANOG wrote:
Using your own measurement is fine but where it gets a push back from
some of us, is your statement that geofeed data is treated as tier 2.
I for one publish geofeeds in an automated fashion. I would like this
data to not be considered a red-headed stepchild.
"Some people might lie in their geofeeds" seems to have poisoned their
view of geofeed reliability. I really suspect the "geofeed fraud" is a
small minority. Other than low end VPN providers hoping to fool streaming
content providers, I don't know why anyone would lie in their geofeed.
Ours is automated too. We use an IPAM that allows us to tag every subnet
with a "location", and each location has a full street address. The
coworker who setup our geofeed wrote a script that pulls all the allocated
subnets and their locations from IPAM and builds the geofeed. As long as
we don't screw up in IPAM (which happens), the geofeed is automatic and
correct. I did end up having to write a geofeed auditor that catches when
someone screws up and emails us so the improperly formatted (and
improperly parsed) locations get fixed almost immediately.
The headaches of IP Geo providers "getting it wrong" impacting our
customers is good motivation for making sure we publish accurate data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
Blue Stream Fiber, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/WPNYIT75HYA2USZXBSELCPPHULT4E53S/
