> > 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.
The information presented in the paper and preso is nothing about the accuracy of IPInfo's data. What you present is a comparison between the results from your probe network, and published geofeeds. If your test and the geofeed AGREE on the location, you classify that geofeed as 'correct' , if they do not agree, you classify it as 'incorrect'. This is nonsensical. Your multilateration method of taking the straight line distance and speed of light in fiber to create distance polygons is flawed. This works in radio when waves do propagate in straight lines, but terrestrial fiber networks don't work this way. The physical network infra between two points is never a great circle route. There are locations all over the world where two endpoints are in the same city, but would show RTTs in the hundreds of ms simply because the two networks involved don't connect on the same continent. Any statements about the 'accuracy of geofeeds' therefore mean nothing. For example, you claim that 92% of geofeeds are accurate to the country level. But what that really means is 92% of your tests agree with geofeeds. It tells us nothing about if your test was accurate or not. It is also important to point out that even if we assert that your test are correct , you point out that geofeeds only cover 1.5% of IPv4, and 0.7% of IPv6 addresses are covered by geofeeds. This means that for basically 99% of all addresses possible, your only reference is your ping/multilateration method, which as stated previously will have issues accurately placing an address, meaning for almost the entire internet, your statement of accuracy is 'just trust me bro'. On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:48 AM Abdullah DevRel of IPinfo via NANOG < [email protected]> 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. > > — Abdullah | DevRel, IPinfo > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EE5AB4UEX6KHLKGNC27OJKPNDA2RYFHO/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CIV6EDFJHRSA6JIGASJKYG33M53HYTM2/
