Network Working Group E. Kline
Internet-Draft Google Japan
Intended status: Informational K. Duleba
Expires: January 30, 2014 Z. Szamonek
Google Switzerland GmbH
July 29, 2013
Self-published IP Geolocation Data
draft-google-self-published-geofeeds-02
Abstract
This document records a format whereby a network operator can publish
a mapping of IP address ranges to simplified geolocation information,
colloquially termed a geolocation "feed". Interested parties can
poll and parse these feeds to update or merge with other geolocation
data sources and procedures.
Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one
conference location to the next have already experimentally published
small geolocation feeds. At least one consumer (Google) has
incorporated these ad hoc feeds into a geolocation data pipeline.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it
for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Implications of publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Self-published IP geolocation feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Geolocation feed individual entry fields . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Prefixes with no geolocation information . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Additional parsing requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Looking up an IP address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Proposed extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Delegation size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Alternate format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Finding self-published IP geolocation feeds . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Ad hoc 'well known' URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Using public databases of network authority . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Using 'reverse' DNS with NAPTR records . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Consuming self-published IP geolocation feeds . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Feed integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Verification of authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Verification of accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Refreshing feed information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Relation to other work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Sample Python validation code . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
Providers of services over the Internet have grown to depend on best-
effort geolocation information to improve the user experience.
Locality information can aid in directing traffic to the nearest
serving location, inferring likely native language, and providing
additional context for services involving search queries.
When an ISP, for example, changes the location where an IP prefix is
deployed, services which make use of geolocation information may
begin to suffer degraded performance. This can lead to customer
complaints, possibly to the ISP directly. Dissemination of correct
geolocation data is complicated by the lack of any centralized means
to coordinate and communicate geolocation information to all
interested consumers of the data.
This document records a format whereby a network operator (an ISP, an
enterprise, or any organization which deems the geolocation of its IP
prefixes to be of concern) can publish a mapping of IP address ranges
to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a
"geolocation feed". Interested parties can poll and parse these
feeds to update or merge with other geolocation data sources and
procedures.
Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one
conference location to the next have already experimentally published
small geolocation feeds. At least one consumer (Google) has
incorporated these ad hoc feeds into a geolocation data pipeline.
1.2. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.3. Implications of publication
This document describes both a format and a mechanism for publishing
data, with the implication that the owner of the data wishes it to be
public. Any privacy risk is bounded by the format, and data
publishers MAY omit certain fields to further protect privacy (see
Section 2.1 for details about which fields exactly may be omitted).
Feed publishers assume the responsibility of determining which data
should be made public.
This proposal does not incorporate a mechanism to communicate
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
acceptable use policies for self-published data. Publication itself
is inferred as a desire by the publisher for the data to be usefully
consumed, similar to the publication of information like host names,
cryptographic keys, and SPF records [RFC4408] in the DNS.
2. Self-published IP geolocation feeds
The format described here was developed to address the need of
network operators to rapidly and usefully share geolocation
information changes. Originally, there arose a specific case where
regional operators found it desirable to publish location changes
rather than wait for geolocation algorithms to "learn" about them.
Later, technical conferences which frequently use the same network
prefixes advertised from different conference locations experimented
by publishing geolocation feeds, updated in advance of network
location changes, in order to better serve conference attendees.
At its simplest, the mechanism consists of a network operator
publishing a file (the "geolocation feed"), which contains several
text entries, one per line. Each entry is keyed by a unique (within
the feed) IP prefix (or single IP address) followed by a sequence of
network locality attributes to be ascribed to the given prefix.
2.1. Specification
For operational simplicity, every feed should contain data about all
IP addresses the provider wants to publish. Alternatives, like
publishing only entries for IP addresses whose geolocation data has
changed or differ from current observed geolocation behavior "at
large", are likely to be too operationally complex.
Feeds MUST use UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding. Text after a '#'
character is treated as a comment only and ignored. Blank lines are
similarly ignored.
Feeds MUST be in comma separated values format as described in
[RFC4180]. Each feed entry is a text line of the form:
ip_range,country,region,city,postal_code
The IP range field is REQUIRED, all others are OPTIONAL (can be
empty), though the requisite minimum number of commas SHOULD be
present.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
2.1.1. Geolocation feed individual entry fields
2.1.1.1. IP Range
REQUIRED. Each IP range field MUST be either a single IP address or
an IP prefix in CIDR notation in conformance with section 3.1 of
[RFC4632] for IPv4 or section 2.3 of [RFC4291] for IPv6.
Examples include "192.0.2.1" and "192.0.2.0/24" for IPv4 and "2001:
db8::1" and "2001:db8::/32" for IPv6.
2.1.1.2. Country
OPTIONAL. The country field, if non-empty, MUST be a 2 letter ISO
country code conforming to ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 [ISO.3166.1alpha2].
Parsers SHOULD treat this field case-insensitively.
Examples include "US" for the United States, "JP" for Japan, and "PL"
for Poland.
2.1.1.3. Region
OPTIONAL. The region field, if non-empty, MUST be a ISO region code
conforming to ISO 3166-2 [ISO.3166.2]. Parsers SHOULD treat this
field case-insensitively.
Examples include "ID-RI" for the Riau province of Indonesia and
"NG-RI" for the Rivers province in Nigeria.
2.1.1.4. City
OPTIONAL. The city field, if non-empty, SHOULD be free UTF-8 text,
excluding the comma (',') character.
Examples include "Dublin", "New York", and "Sao Paulo" (specifically
"S" followed by 0xc3, 0xa3, and "o Paulo").
2.1.1.5. Postal code
OPTIONAL. The postal code field, if non-empty, SHOULD be free UTF-8
text, excluding the comma (',') character. See Section 6 for some
discussion of when this field must not be populated.
Examples include "106-6126" (in Minato ward, Tokyo, Japan).
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
2.1.2. Prefixes with no geolocation information
Feed publishers may indicate that some IP prefixes should not have
any associated geolocation information. It may be that some prefixes
under their administrative control are reserved, not yet allocated or
deployed, or are in the process of being redeployed elsewhere and
existing geolocation information can, from the perspective of the
publisher, safely be discarded.
This special case can be indicated by explicitly leaving blank all
fields which specify any degree of geolocation information. For
example:
127.0.0.0/8,,,,
224.0.0.0/4,,,,
240.0.0.0/4,,,,
Historically, the user-assigned country identifier of "ZZ" had be
used for this same purpose. This is not necessarily preferred, and
no specific interpretation of any of the other user-assigned country
codes is currently defined.
2.1.3. Additional parsing requirements
Feed entries missing required fields, or having a required field
which fails to parse correctly MUST be discarded. It is RECOMMENDED
that such entries also be logged for further administrative review.
While publishers SHOULD follow [RFC5952] style for IPv6 prefix
fields, consumers MUST nevertheless accept all valid string
representations.
Duplicate IP address or prefix entries MUST be considered an error,
and consumer implementations SHOULD log the repeated entries for
further administrative review. Publishers SHOULD take measures to
ensure there is one and only one entry per IP address and prefix.
Feed entries with non-empty optional fields which fail to parse,
either in part or in full, SHOULD be discarded. It is RECOMMENDED
that they also be logged for further administrative review.
For compatibility with future additional fields a parser MUST ignore
any fields beyond those it expects. The data from fields which are
expected and which parse successfully MUST still be considered valid.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
2.1.4. Looking up an IP address
Multiple entries which constitute nested prefixes are permitted.
Consumers SHOULD consider the entry with the longest matching prefix
(i.e. the "most specific") to be the best matching entry for a given
IP address.
2.2. Examples
Example entries using different IP address formats and describing
locations at country, region, city and postal code granularity level,
respectively:
192.0.2.0/25,US,US-AL,,
192.0.2.5,US,US-AL,Alabaster,
192.0.2.128/25,PL,PL-MZ,,02-784
2001:db8::/32,PL,,,
2001:db8:cafe::/48,PL,PL-MZ,,02-784
Experimentally, RIPE has published geolocation information for their
conference network prefixes, which change location in accordance with
each new event. [GEO_RIPE_NCC] at the time of writing contains:
193.0.24.0/21,IE,IE-D,Dublin,
2001:67c:64::/48,IE,IE-D,Dublin,
Similarly, ICANN has published geolocation information for their
portable conference network prefixes. [GEO_ICANN] at the time of
writing contains:
199.91.192.0/21,US,US-CA,Los Angeles,
2620:f:8000::/48,US,US-CA,Los Angeles,
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the geolocation data of SixXS
users, already available at whois.sixxs.net, is now also accessible
in the format described here (see [GEO_SIXXS]). This can be
particularly useful where tunnel broker networks [RFC3053] are
concerned as:
o the geolocation attributes of users with neighboring prefixes can
be quite different and therefore not easily aggregated, and
o attempting to learn this data by statistical analysis can be
complicated by the likely low number of samples for any given
user, making satisfactory statistical confidence difficult to
achieve.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
2.3. Proposed extensions
Already some discussions have resulted in proposed extensions. While
the purpose of this document is principally to record existing
implementation details, it may be that there is a larger desire to
publish other "network attributes" in a similar manner. One such
network attribute, "delegation size", is not currently implemented
but the state of the proposed extension is recorded here to
demonstrate the flexibility required of parser implementations.
The following have been only informally discussed and are not in use
at the time of writing.
2.3.1. Delegation size
OPTIONAL. A publisher may optionally communicate the average
delegated prefix size for subnetworks within the IP prefix of this
entry. For a network operator this can be used to help consumers
distinguish IP prefixes among various use types such as residential
prefixes, allocations to businesses, or data center customer
allocations.
Non-empty strings MUST be of the form required for CIDR notation
suffixes, i.e. "/" followed by the integer prefix length of the
expected allocation to the subnetworks from within the entry's
prefix. In the absence of data to the contrary, it is common to
assume that leaf networks may be delegated a prefix ranging from /24
to /32 in IPv4 and /48 to /64 in IPv6. Default assumptions about
delegation size are left to the consumer's implementation.
Examples for IPv6 include "/48", "/56", "/60", and "/64".
2.3.2. Alternate format
In order to more flexibly support future extensions, use of a more
expressive feed format has been suggested. Use of JavaScript Object
Notation (JSON, [RFC4627]), specifically, has been discussed.
However, at the time of writing no such specification nor
implementation exists.
3. Finding self-published IP geolocation feeds
The issue of finding, and later verifying, geolocation feeds is not
formally specified in this document. At this time, only ad hoc feed
discovery and verification has a modicum of established practice (see
below). Regardless, both the ad hoc mechanics and a few proposed but
not yet implemented alternatives are discussed.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
3.1. Ad hoc 'well known' URIs
To date, geolocation feeds have been shared informally in the form of
HTTPS URIs exchanged in email threads. The two example URIs
documented above describe networks that change locations
periodically, the operators and operational practices of which are
well known within their respective technical communities.
The contents of the feeds are verified by a similarly ad hoc process
including:
o personal knowledge of the parties involved in the exchange, and
o comparison of feed-advertised prefixes with the BGP-advertised
prefixes of Autonomous System Numbers known to be operated by the
publishers.
Ad hoc mechanisms, while useful for early experimentation by
producers and consumers, are unlikely to be adequate for long-term,
widespread use by multiple parties. Future versions of any such
self-published geolocation feed mechanism SHOULD address scalability
concerns by defining a means for automated discovery and verification
of operational authority of advertised prefixes.
3.2. Using public databases of network authority
One possibility for enabling automation would be publication of feed
URIs as a well-known attribute in public databases of network
authority, e.g. the WHOIS service ([RFC3912]) operated by RIRs.
Verification may be performed if the same or similarly authoritative
service provides the identical feed URI for queries for each CIDR
prefix in the geolocation feed.
The burden of serving this data to all interested consumers,
especially the load imposed by any verification process, is not yet
known. The anticipation of additional operational burden on the
public resource of record (the database of network authority) is
however a noted concern.
3.3. Using 'reverse' DNS with NAPTR records
Another possibility for automating the location and verification of a
geolocation feed is to incorporate feed URIs into the DNS,
specifically the in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa portions of the DNS
hierarchy. A suitably formatted query for a NAPTR ([RFC3403])
record, or more specifically a U-NAPTR ([RFC4848]) record, could
yield a transformation to a geolocation feed URI.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
For example, assuming a purely theoretical service name of
"x-geofeed", a 'reverse' DNS zone might contain a record of the form:
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 200 10 "u" "x-geofeed" ( ; service
; regexp
"!.*!https://example.com/ipgeo.csv!"
"" ; replacement
)
Attempts to locate the geolocation feed for a given IP address would
begin by querying directly for a NAPTR record associated with the
address's PTR-style name. For example, 192.0.2.4 and 2001:db8::6
would cause a NAPTR record request to be issued for "4.2.0.192.in-
addr.arpa" and "6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d
.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa", respectively.
If no such record exists one further NAPTR query for the fully
qualified domain name of the SOA record in the authority section of
the response to the previous query would be performed ("2.0.192.in-
addr.arpa" and "d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa" in the examples above).
If one or more NAPTR records exist for the full PTR-style name but
none of them are for the required service name (e.g. "x-geofeed"),
then likely no SOA will be returned as a hint for subsequent queries.
In this case implementations would need to first explicitly query for
an SOA record for the full PTR-style name, and then query for a NAPTR
record of the SOA in the response (assuming it differs from the
previously queried name).
Any successfully located feed URIs could then be processed as
outlined by this document.
Verification of the contents of a feed would proceed in essentially
the same way. CIDR prefixes may be verified by constructing a query
for any single address (at random) within the prefix and proceeding
as above. While not strictly provably correct (in cases where a
publisher has delegated some portion of the advertised prefix but not
excluded it from its feed), it may nevertheless suffice for
operational purposes, especially if a low-impact on-going
verification of observed client IP addresses is implemented, to
(eventually) catch any oversights.
This mode is untested and may prove impractical. However, the
operational burden is more closely located with those wishing and
willing to bear it, i.e. the publishers who would likely handle
serving in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa for the IP prefixes under their
authority.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
4. Consuming self-published IP geolocation feeds
Consumers MAY treat published feed data as a hint only and MAY choose
to prefer other sources of geolocation information for any given IP
range. Regardless of a consumer's stance with respect to a given
published feed, there are some points of note for sensibly and
effectively consuming published feeds.
4.1. Feed integrity
The integrity of published information SHOULD be protected by
securing the means of publication, for example by using HTTP over TLS
[RFC2818]. Whenever possible, consumers SHOULD prefer retrieving
geolocation feeds in a manner that guarantees integrity of the feed.
4.2. Verification of authority
Consumers of self-published IP geolocation feeds SHOULD perform some
form of verification that the publisher is in fact authoritative for
the addresses in the feed. The actual means of verification is
likely dependent upon the way in which the feed is discovered. Ad
hoc shared URIs, for example, will likely require an ad hoc
verification process. Future automated means of feed discovery
SHOULD have an accompanying automated means of verification.
A consumer MUST only trust geolocation information for IP addresses
or ranges for which the publisher has been verified as
administratively authoritative. All other geolocation feed entries
MUST be ignored and SHOULD be logged for further administrative
review.
4.3. Verification of accuracy
Errors and inaccuracies may occur at many levels, and publication and
consumption of geolocation data are no exceptions. To the extent
practical consumers SHOULD take steps to verify the accuracy of
published locality. Verification methodology, resolution of
discrepancies, and preference for alternative sources of data are
left to the discretion of the feed consumer.
Consumers SHOULD decide on discrepancy thresholds and SHOULD flag for
administrative review feed entries which exceed set thresholds.
4.4. Refreshing feed information
As a publisher can change geolocation data at any time and without
notification consumers SHOULD implement mechanisms to periodically
refresh local copies of feed data. In the absence of any other
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
refresh timing information it is recommended that consumers SHOULD
refresh feeds no less often than weekly.
For feeds available via HTTPS (or HTTP), the publisher MAY
communicate refresh timing information by means of the standard HTTP
expiration model (section 13.2 of [RFC2616]). Specifically,
publishers can include either an Expires header or a Cache-Control
header specifying the max-age. Where practical, consumers SHOULD
refresh feed information before the expiry time is reached.
5. Security Considerations
As there is no true security in the obscurity of the location of any
given IP address, self-publication of this data fundamentally opens
no new attack vectors. For publishers, self-published data merely
increases the ease with which such location data might be exploited.
For consumers, feed retrieval processes may receive input from
potentially hostile sources (e.g. in the event of hijacked traffic).
As such, proper input validation and defense measures MUST be taken.
Similarly, consumers who do not perform sufficient verification of
published data bear the same risks as from other forms of geolocation
configuration errors.
6. Privacy Considerations
Publishers of geolocation feeds are advised to have fully considered
any and all privacy implications of the disclosure of such
information for the users of the described networks prior to
publication. A thorough comprehension of the security considerations
of a chosen geolocation policy is highly recommended, including an
understanding of some of the limitations of information obscurity
(see also [RFC6772]).
As noted in Section 2.1, each location field in an entry is optional,
in order to support expressing only the level of specificity which
the publisher has deemed acceptable. There is no requirement that
the level of specificity be consistent across all entries within a
feed. In particular, the Postal Code field (Section 2.1.1.5) can
provide very specific geolocation, sometimes within a building. Such
specific Postal Code values MUST NOT be published in geo feeds
without the consent of the parties being located.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
7. Relation to other work
While not originally done in conjunction with the [GEOPRIV] working
group, Richard Barnes observed that this work is nevertheless
consistent with that which the group has defined, both for address
format and for privacy. The data elements in geolocation feeds are
equivalent to the following XML structure (vis. [RFC5139]):
country
region
city
postal_code
Providing geolocation information to this granularity is equivalent
to the following privacy policy (vis. the definition of the
'building' level of disclosure):
building
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to reviewers and
early implementers, including but not limited to Mikael Abrahamsson,
Ray Bellis, John Bond, Alissa Cooper, Andras Erdei, Marco Hogewoning,
Mike Joseph, Warren Kumari, Menno Schepers, Justyna Sidorska, Pim van
Pelt, and Bjoern A. Zeeb. Richard L. Barnes in particular
contributed substantial review, text, and advice.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[ISO.3166.1alpha2]
International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
3166-1 decoding table", .
[ISO.3166.2]
International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 3166-
2:2007", .
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC4180] Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[GEOPRIV] Internet Engineering Task Force, "IETF geopriv Working
Group", .
[GEO_ICANN]
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
"ICANN Meeting Geolocation Data",
.
[GEO_RIPE_NCC]
Schepers, M., "RIPE NCC Meeting Geolocation Data",
.
[GEO_SIXXS]
van Pelt, P., "SixXS Geolocation Data",
.
[IPADDR_PY]
Shields, M. and P. Moody, "Python IP address manipulation
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
library", .
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3053] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6
Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.
[RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database",
RFC 3403, October 2002.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
[RFC4408] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
RFC 4408, April 2006.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
[RFC5139] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location
Format for Presence Information Data Format Location
Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC6772] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Cuellar, J., Polk, J.,
Morris, J., and M. Thomson, "Geolocation Policy: A
Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for
Location Information", RFC 6772, January 2013.
Appendix A. Sample Python validation code
Included here is a simple format validator in Python for self-
published ipgeo feeds. This tool reads CSV data in the self-
published ipgeo feed format from the standard input and performs
basic validation. It is intended for use by feed publishers before
launching a feed. Note that this validator does not verify the
uniqueness of every IP prefix entry within the feed as a whole, but
only verifies the syntax of each single line from within the feed. A
complete validator MUST also ensure IP prefix uniqueness.
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
The main source file "ipgeo_feed_validator.py" follows. It requires
use of the open source ipaddr Python library for IP address and CIDR
parsing and validation [IPADDR_PY].
#!/usr/bin/python
#
# Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of
# the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and
# binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to,
# and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD
# License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
# Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
"""Simple format validator for self-published ipgeo feeds.
This tool reads CSV data in the self-published ipgeo feed format from
the standard input and performs basic validation. It is intended for
use by feed publishers before launching a feed.
"""
import csv
import ipaddr
import re
import sys
class IPGeoFeedValidator(object):
def __init__(self):
self.ranges = {}
self.line_number = 0
self.output_log = {}
self.SetOutputStream(sys.stderr)
def Validate(self, feed):
"""Check validity of an IPGeo feed.
Args:
feed: iterable with feed lines
"""
for line in feed:
self._ValidateLine(line)
def SetOutputStream(self, logfile):
"""Controls where the output messages go do (STDERR by default).
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
Use None to disable logging.
Args:
logfile: a file object (e.g., sys.stdout or sys.stderr) or None.
"""
self.output_stream = logfile
def CountErrors(self, severity):
"""How many ERRORs or WARNINGs were generated."""
return len(self.output_log.get(severity, []))
############################################################
def _ValidateLine(self, line):
line = line.rstrip('\r\n')
self.line_number += 1
self.line = line
self.is_correct_line = True
if self._ShouldIgnoreLine(line):
return
fields = [field for field in csv.reader([line])][0]
self._ValidateFields(fields)
self._FlushOutputStream()
def _ShouldIgnoreLine(self, line):
line = line.strip()
return len(line) == 0 or line.startswith('#')
############################################################
def _ValidateFields(self, fields):
assert(len(fields) > 0)
is_correct = self._IsIPAddressOrRangeCorrect(fields[0])
if len(fields) > 1:
if not self._IsCountryCode2Correct(fields[1]):
is_correct = False
if len(fields) > 2 and not self._IsRegionCodeCorrect(fields[2]):
is_correct = False
if len(fields) != 5:
self._ReportWarning('5 fields were expected (got %d).'
% len(fields))
############################################################
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
def _IsIPAddressOrRangeCorrect(self, field):
if '/' in field:
return self._IsCIDRCorrect(field)
return self._IsIPAddressCorrect(field)
def _IsCIDRCorrect(self, cidr):
try:
iprange = ipaddr.IPNetwork(cidr)
if iprange.network._ip != iprange._ip:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Network.')
return False
if iprange.is_private:
self._ReportError('IP Address must not be private.')
return False
except:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Network.')
return False
return True
def _IsIPAddressCorrect(self, ipaddress):
try:
ip = ipaddr.IPAddress(ipaddress)
except:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Address.')
return False
if ip.is_private:
self._ReportError('IP Address must not be private.')
return False
return True
############################################################
def _IsCountryCode2Correct(self, country_code_2):
if len(country_code_2) == 0:
return True
if len(country_code_2) != 2 or not country_code_2.isalpha():
self._ReportError(
'Country code must be in the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 format.')
return False
return True
def _IsRegionCodeCorrect(self, region_code):
if len(region_code) == 0:
return True
if '-' not in region_code:
self._ReportError('Region code must be in the ISO 3166-2 format.')
return False
parts = region_code.split('-')
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
if not self._IsCountryCode2Correct(parts[0]):
return False
return True
############################################################
def _ReportError(self, message):
self._ReportWithSeverity('ERROR', message)
def _ReportWarning(self, message):
self._ReportWithSeverity('WARNING', message)
def _ReportWithSeverity(self, severity, message):
self.is_correct_line = False
output_line = '%s: %s\n' % (severity, message)
if severity not in self.output_log:
self.output_log[severity] = []
self.output_log[severity].append(output_line)
if self.output_stream is not None:
self.output_stream.write(output_line)
def _FlushOutputStream(self):
if self.is_correct_line: return
if self.output_stream is None: return
self.output_stream.write('line %d: %s\n\n'
% (self.line_number, self.line))
############################################################
def main():
feed_validator = IPGeoFeedValidator()
feed_validator.Validate(sys.stdin)
if feed_validator.CountErrors('ERROR'):
sys.exit(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
A unit test file, "ipgeo_feed_validator_test.py" is provided as well.
It provides basic test coverage of the code above, though does not
test correct handling of non-ASCII UTF-8 strings.
#!/usr/bin/python
#
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
# Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of
# the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and
# binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to,
# and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD
# License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
# Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
import sys
from ipgeo_feed_validator import IPGeoFeedValidator
class IPGeoFeedValidatorTest(object):
def __init__(self):
self.validator = IPGeoFeedValidator()
self.validator.SetOutputStream(None)
self.successes = 0
self.failures = 0
def Run(self):
self.TestFeedLine('# asdf', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine(' ', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('asdf', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('asdf,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('aaaa::,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('zzzz::,US', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine(',US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.888', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.asdf', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('2001:db8:cafe::/48,PL,PL-MZ,,02-784', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('2001:db8:cafe::/48', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,PL', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,PL,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,ZZ,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,USA,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,99,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,USA-CA,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,USA,USA-CA,,', 2, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,94043', 0, 0)
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,94043,'
'1600 Ampthitheatre Parkway', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.0/24,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88/32,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.0/35,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('172.15.30.1,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('172.28.30.1,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('192.167.100.1,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('192.168.100.1,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('10.0.5.9,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('10.0.5.0/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('fc00::/48,PL,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('fe00::/48,PL,,,', 0, 0)
print '%d tests passed, %d failed' % (self.successes, self.failures)
def IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity(self, severity, expected_msg_count):
msg_count = self.validator.CountErrors(severity)
if msg_count != expected_msg_count:
print 'TEST FAILED: %s\nexpected %d %s[s], observed %d\n%s\n' % (
self.validator.line, expected_sg_count, severity, msg_count,
str(self.validator.output_log[severity]))
return False
return True
def IsOutputLogCorrect(self, new_errors, new_warnings):
retval = True
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity('ERROR', new_errors):
retval = False
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity('WARNING', new_warnings):
retval = False
return retval
def TestFeedLine(self, line, warning_count, error_count):
self.validator.output_log['WARNING'] = []
self.validator.output_log['ERROR'] = []
self.validator._ValidateLine(line)
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrect(warning_count, error_count):
self.failures += 1
return False
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Self-published IP Geolocation Data July 2013
self.successes += 1
return True
if __name__ == '__main__':
IPGeoFeedValidatorTest().Run()
Authors' Addresses
Erik Kline
Google Japan
Roppongi 6-10-1, 26th Floor
Minato, Tokyo 106-6126
Japan
Phone: +81 03 6384 9000
Email: ek@google.com
Krzysztof Duleba
Google Switzerland GmbH
Brandschenkestrasse 110
Zuerich 8002
Switzerland
Email: kduleba@google.com
Zoltan Szamonek
Google Switzerland GmbH
Brandschenkestrasse 110
Zuerich 8002
Switzerland
Email: zszami@google.com
Kline, et al. Expires January 30, 2014 [Page 22]