Re: [NANOG] Re: Geofeeds are adversarial ??? was Re: Geofeeds are good

[Peter Folk via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

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

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/NLM5OZ5RVG2OSCYM6Z646UDY7IMWF4O4/