Perhaps you have Canadian branches feeding off the same connection and they will have the reverse problem with geo-location?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Jeff Cartier < jeff.cart...@pernod-ricard.com> wrote: > Thanks for the comments everyone. They are much appreciated. > In regards to changing the address of our ARIN block to a US office > address....are their any trades-offs in doing that? Just curious. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:02 PM > To: Jeff Cartier > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Enterprise Internet - Question > > > On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Jeff Cartier wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I just wanted to throw a question out to the list... > > > > In our data center we feed Internet to some of our US based offices and > every now and again we receive complaints that they can't access some US > based Internet content because they are coming from a Canadian based IP. > > > > This has sparked an interesting discussion around a few questions....of > which I'd like to hear the lists opinions on. > > > > - How should/can an enterprise deal with accessibility to > internet content issues? (ie. that whole coming from a Canadian IP accessing > US content) > > > > This is an example of why content restriction based on IP address > geolocation is such a bad idea in general. > > Frankly, the easiest thing to do (since most Canadian companies aren't as > brain-dead) is to update your whois records with the address of the block > allocated to your datacenter so that it looks like it's in one of your US > offices. I realize this sounds silly for a variety of reasons, but, it > solves the problem without expensive or configuration-intensive workarounds > such as selective NAT, etc. > > > o Side question on that - Could we simply obtain a US based IP address > and selectively NAT? > > > You can, but, you can also hit yourself over the head repeatedly with a > hammer. Selective NAT will yield more content, but, the pain levels will > probably be similar. > > > - Does the idea of regional Internet locations make sense? If > so, when do they make sense? For instance, having a hub site in South > America (ie. Brazil) and having all offices in Venezuela, Peru and Argentina > route through a local Internet feed in Brazil. > > > > Not really. The whole content-restriction by IP geolocation thing also > doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, the fact that something is nonsensical > does not prevent someone from doing it or worse, selling it. > > You should do what makes sense for the economics of the topology you need. > The address geolocation issues can usually be best addressed by manipulating > whois. If your address block from ARIN is an allocation, you can manipulate > sub-block address registration issues through the use of SWIP, for example. > > > - Does the idea of having local Internet at each site make more > sense? If so why? > > > > That's really more of an economic and policy question within your > organization than a technical one. > > > > Owen > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please > notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended > recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on > this e-mail. > > This message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses, Spam, > and Explicit Content. > > >
