[OpenIPMap] Geolocating remote peerings at IXPs

Mon Apr 13 15:12:57 CEST 2015

As far as I know;

IP's are individually registerd / saved. It could be that is incorrect but
then it can be corrected.

What also can happen is that someone uploads an IP range with a location,
like your situation the assumption that all those IP's belong to Ams-ix
therefore are geolocated in Amsterdam. If I'm correct it's like routing,
the more specific information will overrule the the less-specific tagging.

Also, I'm not aware of any connections/relations between IX's IP blocks and
OpenIPmap such as sites as peeringdb do.

Sebastian

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Martin J. Levy <mahtin at mahtin.com> wrote:

> Brilliant point; however as the IX is located where the IP address is
> geolocated and the packet must go thru the location where the IX is
> located; I'd say the lines aren't that wrong.
>
> Isn't the previous hop (the inbound on the networks peering router) still
> correct?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Baptiste Jonglez <bjonglez at illyse.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How does OpenIPMap handle remote peerings at IXPs?  Currently, when an
>> address is identified as belonging to an IXP (e.g. AMS-IX), it is
>> geolocated at the location of the IXP (e.g. Amsterdam), and the UI doesn't
>> allow users to change the location.
>>
>> However, due to remote peerings, the actual router might be located
>> somewhere completely different.  For instance, the following addresses:
>> 80.249.211.136 and 2001:7f8:1:0:a500:19:8435:1 belong to the AMS-IX range,
>> but the routers are physically located in Lyon, France (as indicated by
>> latency + external knowledge).
>>
>> Would it make sense to allow editing the location of addresses in IXP
>> ranges?  There might be some issues when two routers doing remote peering
>> appear as consecutive hops in a traceroute with their IXP addresses
>> (unlikely, but maybe possible?).  In that case, the link on the map would
>> indicate a direct connection between the two routers (e.g. Belfast and
>> Lyon), while the actual link goes through the peering fabric (e.g. in
>> Amsterdam).
>>
>> That being said, the problem is more general: the L2 link between any two
>> neighbouring routers might take an arbitrary geographical path, but this
>> is not taken into account by only geolocating routers.  But since it's
>> difficult to have access to this information in general (IXPs are a
>> special case where it's easier), that's probably ok.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Baptiste
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenIPMap mailing list
>> OpenIPMap at ripe.net
>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/openipmap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenIPMap mailing list
> OpenIPMap at ripe.net
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/openipmap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/openipmap/attachments/20150413/c53165c4/attachment.html>