Re: Geolocation data management practices?

[Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>]

Go through this list:
https://thebrotherswisp.com/index.php/geo-and-vpn/

The RFC only works if they're pulling your feed and they'd only know that
if you contact them in the first place.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:14 AM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:

> Besides geofeed, there are also geoidx records in IRRs but whether
> geolocation services actually use geofeed or geoidx remains to be
> seen. You can see some geoidx: at this IRR entry in TC:
> https://bgp.net.br/whois/?q=-s%20TC%20-i%20mnt-by%20MAINT-AS271761
>
> Regarding LACNIC, what LACNIC, NIC.mx and NIC.br do is to select which
> RIR or NIR services requests depending on the organisation's country.
>
>
> Rubens
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:53 AM Shawn <mailman.nanog.org () kleinart net>
> wrote:
> > Aloha NANOG,
> >
> > What is the best practice (or peoples preferred methods) to
> > update/correct/maintain geolocation data?
> > Do most people start with description field info in route/route6 objects?
> >
> >
> > Also, thoughts and considerations on using IPv4 space from one RIR in
> > countries belonging to another RIR?
> >
> > With IPv4 exhaustion and inter-RIR IPv4 transfers, and geolocation data,
> it
> > seems less applicable than it had been (a decade ago).  The IP's will be
> > used for CDN, not by end-users/subscribers.
> > Context: trying to work through an administrative "challenge" with LACNIC
> > regarding an IPv4 transfer, considering transferring to ARIN and then
> using
> > in LACNIC (then once resolved, transfer from ARIN to LACNIC).  Or just
> using
> > existing ARIN space in Brazil.
> > LACNIC is making things more difficult than they need to be.  I know
> this is
> > NANOG... but seeking advice, working on a global network, US HQ,
> currently
> > no active "registration" in LACNIC (except Brazil), but we operate in 5
> > countries in the region (data center/colo).  We would use Brazil, but
> very
> > hesitant to use their NIC (nic.br); LACNIC is saying we cannot maintain
> our
> > relationship with them using our Brazil organization (our only formal
> > subsidiary in the region).  LACNIC does not really define the "entity"
> > operating in their region well. We use our US entity with RIPE and APNIC,
> > simply showing documentation (contracts) that we operate in their region.
> > Maybe I am not using the magic word?