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

[Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> Nonetheless, it would be nice that some neutral Internet measurement
> organization (of which there are a few) would take up this effort on a
> yearly basis.


The most likely outcome of that would be quite predictable.

The companies on the low end of the scorecard would complain and say the
analysis is flawed. The companies on the high end of the scorecard would
use it in their marketing.



On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 1:34 AM Hank Nussbacher via NANOG <
nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> On 16/02/2026 7:47, Abdullah DevRel of IPinfo via NANOG wrote:
> > Hi Hank,
> >
> > Large-scale ground truth evaluations require access to data that is
> typically only available to enterprises internally. Our NANOG 96
> presentation (https://nanog.org/events/nanog-96/content/5678/) and our
> peer-reviewed research (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3676869) present
> what we can share publicly about our methodology and accuracy. We would
> welcome an independent academic benchmark if one were to emerge.
>
> I recently came across:
>
> https://ipapi.is/blog/ip-geolocation-accuracy.html
>
> which analyzed 10 geolocation DBs for accuracy based on ground-truth.
>
>
> I assume it is biased and many here will point out the holes in their
> analysis.
>
> Nonetheless, it would be nice that some neutral Internet measurement
> organization (of which there are a few) would take up this effort on a
> yearly basis.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hank
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/XMAJ26EX33ML7KD5BBGYKTIZYCFFTBWI/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/63Q5WO7XNGFXG6CAY53NH3FQSNMFUHLM/