[DNSOP] Taking IPv4 GeoIP into account for IPv6 GeoIP

Davey Song <songlinjian@gmail.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <songlinjian@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77FD130ED6; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cSsmohSneyS; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A74130ED3; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id e22-v6so5140784qto.6; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tra/yfxyndbM2GGOc4Sh1wn8I2NIfKr75sg5+ZG5VGg=; b=DORJjUBMo8bRbYyRnQA8ePzcaQfJCgEeI6kxoqrug9bTEY0RwKRxEy4fW0w4uXUTRk vCe0LwDHiFOFu0n2EuQL0GC8FUfZHhUy9uRwwScRxfCjIn6ea6tASnWDpnUQbUzgOINv hocyLoU9/cSXea9S+ZiEKtYQfxqOSWpGrJPPIGSlISYjbOF1CDHCmx8hLtp0Uv93hcwg lBZ0zRT1HAxs97grUbdFn19C0Net9FIBL7YhQVX/cqzwZST7PyIM162Q5XMO5skQWqw+ LbHHMhmfRWE2tYndsMXZBNGE8NM024Jhkq1G37o1bY9sou/LRTCUufqsLTJkngWxTAGM czZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tra/yfxyndbM2GGOc4Sh1wn8I2NIfKr75sg5+ZG5VGg=; b=qzYjSqfaa+371urXj3TCNxrTy2fAVU+mC+syzy4tKk6OQAzRnbbtObFKgfyRe2ke9g pQ5y6KVSmhcyRD6cG8Dd4ly+ioNqz5GUOtO8g3jaLv/N4QqaN1DTbLpEAltUtLO62MRZ kIuhORFyGoXeBenCh71iJk/cxacLgvgjCJURL3Vw/Plh1LuT7oqCTe+b1/+TGsXk05Py D7ULp/X3t4wY7Cl9S3Yyx3tuj8BnzJ6gkCbQbzBMDQVGGFH6+iIRoo0FrNuKqtnnsQkY P5/NCpAPnHPZibAer++HYzlWrZbbfMeQmp2wmPiZp0AG43poY8FXlyWBW2NlowLybFVk 1MhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojYEk8LTCruDffzRFXfvzw9RkuanwVD08YzvYvLSmteet9W88XA ORTZ22iWWjLELLz//caC/fbfTVbtDamWWmJn/Cb1wyc3GTtg3w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV603vraavSXKVWWj61rfVaG0yB5fb1YiGHzOZEdhmllb57qbxT49xD6J1g8xDFlx4MsuILfHCwfnPq7dkizwon4=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c172:: with SMTP id i47-v6mr27093959qvh.213.1539170401305; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Davey Song <songlinjian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:20:03 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAObRXKTwQnHh4cAfPMscgO3ewzXEBBt=c84y5zBTO-NtfTY1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: weijianliao@tencent.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004cd9a0577de0953"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/O3ikh84RRWBG7QQry7ZJVMWVpQg>
Subject: [DNSOP] Taking IPv4 GeoIP into account for IPv6 GeoIP
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:20:05 -0000

Hi all,

Recently I'm engaged in a project on the issue of IPv6 GeoIP for a large
Internet company. IPv6 GeoIP is identified as an notable chanllge to
mitigate their Geolocation-based application to IPv6. I come up with a idea
to summarize the existing practice and propsed technologies into a
information draft. I'm hoping relevant people can help to review it and
share your insight on this issue.

I put it into my Github repo :

Short abstract of this document :

During IPv6 adoption, IPv6 GeoIP is identified as a challenge and speed
bump for content and application operator. Some studies and operational
experiences show that the accuracy of IPv6 GeoIP is relatively poor in
comparison to their IPv4 counterparts. This memo introduces use cases and
approaches to provide better IPv6 GeoIP based on an intuitive idea: if IPv6
GeoIP is not as good as IPv4 GeoIP, why not use dual-stack host's IPv4
GeoIP for IPv6 GeoIP purpose?

I would like to ask :

1) Do you like it or not? Is this document valuable to be published in IETF?
2) If yes , which WG should it belong to? v6ops or dnsop
3) Is there any similar and relevant practice do you observe or operate
now?  What's the major challenges.

Best regards,