Re: Geofeeds are adversarial — was Re: Geofeeds are good

[Nicolas Fiumarelli via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Hello all,

Interesting discussion,

Just to add my grain of sand to the geofeed discussion:

At LACNIC, there is already operational support of +5 years for geofeeds
aligned with the IETF work in this space ( although adoption is low).

RFC 8805 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8805) defines the
standard CSV format for geofeeds, and RFC 9632 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9632) specifies the use of the
geofeed: attribute in RPSL objects so that operators can reference their
geofeed directly from WHOIS/RDAP data.

The 5 RIRs allow to publish geofeeds, format may vary from remarks
attribute to geofeed attribute, but in all regions, members can:

* Publish geofeed information through MiLACNIC <http://milacnic.lacnic.net>,
myApnic, MyArin, etc.

* Associate geolocation data with their IP resources.

* Make this information publicly available in a structured and
machine-readable way.

In the case of LACNIC btw you can download the entire geofeed raw file (390
kb) for the region here:  https://milacnic.lacnic.net/lacnic/geofeeds

This allows operators to provide first-party location data in a
standards-based manner, without relying solely on third-party inference. Of
course, adoption and operational practices vary, but the functionality is
available and aligned with the relevant RFCs.

I thought this might be useful context for the ongoing discussion around
trust, verification, and the role of RIRs in facilitating accurate
geolocation data.

Best regards,
Nicolás Fiumarelli
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EROLQFNKRSZ7BY6KSUKSPCC3CDXWQNCD/