I think what we need is an update to the RFP.
I could see a few directions that might be useful:1) Provide verifiable assurance of geofeed accuracy. Maybe specifying intermediate-hop node locations and path information with latencies and distances to core nodes, or something?
2) A feedback mechanism for entities to report if/when they feel the data is not accurate, and/or a formal dispute resolution process. Eg a way of specifying a geofeed-feedback email address and standard format for queries to confirm accuracy, and for responding to such?
3) A require RFP-compilant geofeed aggregators to provide the geofeed data or results of the dispute resolution process as their primary location information (with an optional alternate "calculated location" metric if they have some algorithmic approach to deciding where things are), so that the content company would know that any RFP-compliant GeoIP provider is giving them RFP-compliant data
4) DNS-like (or DNS-based) IP location lookup system, obviating the need for geoip feed aggregators for entities that supply geofeeds
Unrelatedly, maybe someone needs to sue the GeoIP companies in a class action because they are committing fraud, claiming good data that is bad and claiming that our users are in places they are not. There are real harms to people who are blocked from services by location if that location is not accurate. This would provide GeoIP providers incentive to behave better...
Peter -- Peter Folk, CEO - Volo.net Internet+Tech & Energy Solutions Fast, local, reliable and affordable Internet, phone and TV. Cell 217 721-3893 - Office 217 367-8656 - http://volo.net
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NLM5OZ5RVG2OSCYM6Z646UDY7IMWF4O4/
