From 4 to 10 September 2026, APNIC 62 convened network operators, researchers, and Internet infrastructure specialists in Mumbai, India, to examine operational challenges and emerging technologies affecting the Asia Pacific region. One session, titled Behind the pin: The reality of IP geolocation, brought together perspectives from multiple stakeholders on the technical and practical hurdles involved in determining where IP addresses are actually located.
The distinction between registration location and actual usage location remains a foundational challenge. Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Whois and Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) services, along with joint RIR statistics files, document where IP address resources are registered—not necessarily where they are deployed. While Whois and RDAP support more granular registrations using ISO 3166 two-letter economy codes for specific prefixes, true geolocation demands additional mechanisms. RFC 8805 defines a format for publishing geographic data, and RFC 9632 provides a standard discovery method for that information.
Measurement and analytics: The AIORI approach
Anand Raje presented research from the Advanced Internet Operations Research in India (AIORI) project, which is building a platform combining measurement data with published location information to validate and analyze IP geolocation accuracy. A core principle emerged from the work: geolocation should be treated as evidence, not certainty. While an IP address can often be linked to a country, region, or city, it does not necessarily pinpoint a person, device, or exact physical location. Confidence in the result depends entirely on the underlying data source.
Raje emphasized that geolocation underpins decisions ranging from content delivery and traffic engineering to fraud detection, compliance, sanctions screening, and public safety. As the stakes rise, so do the costs of inaccuracy. No single technique can reliably determine location; instead, effective systems combine multiple signals—registry and routing data, active measurements, machine learning, operator-published geofeeds, and client-provided information. Quality depends on how these signals are integrated and validated.
To support this research, AIORI has deployed approximately 500 geolocated measurement anchors across India and an anycast testbed spanning more than 10 locations, providing independent evidence for assessing geolocation accuracy. Analysis of geofeed data revealed wide variation in geographic precision, with many records offering city-level information but relatively few including street-level detail—a reflection of both geolocation limitations and privacy protection efforts.
Raje posed three questions to the community: What is limiting geofeed adoption in the APNIC region? How should geolocation evidence be assessed when decisions carry different levels of risk? How can location claims be made verifiable, explainable, and contestable? These questions underscored a broader session theme: the need for greater transparency, accountability, and trust in geolocation systems.
The IETF perspective: Design limitations and growing pressure
Dhruv Dhody presented findings from an Internet Architecture Board (IAB) workshop held in late 2025, offering an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) perspective on the geolocation problem space. As Dhody noted, "IP addresses were not designed to carry geographic meaning … but geolocating IP addresses is a widespread practice that has become ingrained into many functions of the web and Internet today."
IP addresses are geography-neutral identifiers whose primary function is to provide unique addressing within Internet Protocol networks. They are carried in packets and routed using protocols such as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS). Over time, however, they have become closely tied to real-world geographic questions. Governments, businesses, researchers, and users increasingly demand to know where traffic originates and where it is destined.
Pressure to improve geolocation technologies is mounting as Internet connectivity becomes more dynamic. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks, multinational mobile providers, and highly distributed service architectures complicate location mapping. Users frequently move between networks while application sessions remain active. Simultaneously, regulatory, commercial, and social demands for location information continue to intensify. Future geolocation systems must improve accuracy while safeguarding user privacy.
RIRs as trusted publishers: Closing the adoption gap
Sid Mathur addressed the Cooperation SIG panel and later spoke in Tech Session 2 (AI) about geofeed publication and discovery mechanisms defined in RFC 8805 and RFC 9632. He demonstrated how AI tools can enhance data quality by detecting inconsistencies and assisting with geofeed proofreading.
Mathur argued that RIRs occupy a unique position in the geolocation ecosystem because they already operate the authoritative registration systems identifying resource holders. Rather than establishing new processes, the existing registry framework could serve as a trusted foundation for geolocation publication. Geofeed publication leverages workflows operators already understand, creates a verifiable chain of trust through RFC 9632, and represents a high-impact opportunity to boost awareness and adoption.
Mathur's data revealed striking regional disparities in geofeed adoption. Among geolocation records associated with Whois-discoverable networks, 75.5% of successful geofeed publishers were in the RIPE NCC region, compared with 21.6% in the ARIN region and 3.0% in the APNIC region. To address this gap, Mathur called for more consistent support across all RIRs. He cited RFC 9877, co-authored by APNIC and ARIN and published in October 2025, as an existing mechanism that could simplify deployment. His primary recommendation was direct: Make geofeed publication a one-click function within Member portals and registry dashboards. An informal APNIC community survey found that uncertainty about how registries could assist was a major barrier to adoption.
The ISP perspective: Complexity and data quality challenges
Shailesh Gupta presented an ISP perspective, highlighting the role of six major geolocation providers that combine RIR data and geofeed information with their own datasets and methodologies. Organizations seeking to correct geolocation errors often navigate multiple reporting and remediation processes. Challenges exist within self-published geofeeds and RIR registration data, and downstream processing by commercial providers can further compound complexity.
Gupta emphasized that geofeeds should be viewed as a best-effort mechanism. Their accuracy is influenced by data sources, update cycles, VPN usage, and evolving network deployment practices. In many cases, location data is intentionally approximate—identifying only a state or city for privacy reasons—or inaccurate because network assignments and usage patterns shift over time. An ISO 3166 country code can often be considered reasonably reliable, but accuracy generally decreases at state and sub-regional levels and falls further at city, suburb, and street levels as network management practices become less aligned with geographic boundaries.
Gupta also highlighted place-name ambiguity during the AI session. Names such as Frankfurt or Kendal refer to multiple locations. Frankfurt alone encompasses several distinct places in Germany, while Kendal exists in Indonesia, South Africa, Canada, Jamaica, and England. These data-quality issues cannot always be resolved by updating a geofeed; the underlying problem may lie in how a geolocation provider interprets place names and maps them to network data.
The challenge intensifies for multinational providers, where the parent economy code may not accurately reflect where a service is delivered. When third-party geolocation providers are involved, correction processes, reporting mechanisms, and response times vary significantly. Compliance obligations and accountability remain unresolved.
The commercial data integrator view: Multiple sources, no single truth
Luna, product owner for GeoIP services at MaxMind, offered the perspective of a third-party data integrator. Self-published geolocation data and RIR registration records represent only one category of information MaxMind uses to determine where IP resources are deployed. MaxMind combines multiple data sources, including BGP relationships, network usage patterns, browser-derived signals, and other operational datasets. Location determinations rest on a combination of inputs rather than a single authoritative source.
This raises a fundamental question: what constitutes ground truth for geolocation? The answer may vary by stakeholder. End users, content providers, and ISPs may all hold different expectations about what the question "where is this IP address?" actually means. As a result, different geolocation systems may produce different answers from identical underlying data.
Luna also noted significant regional differences in both the volume and quality of geolocation data. The United States and Europe generate the largest volumes and account for most customer feedback and data-quality interactions, leading commercial geolocation providers to focus greater attention on those regions. By contrast, geofeed adoption and related mechanisms remain lower across parts of Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin America, affecting the quality and consistency of geolocation outcomes in those regions.
Luna outlined practical approaches that Asia Pacific ISPs can use to improve data quality, streamline updates, and increase geolocation accuracy over time, highlighting improvements in how network operators can engage with MaxMind.
The path forward: Transparency and collaboration
The session made clear that IP geolocation is no longer a simple mapping problem. As Internet infrastructure becomes more distributed through cloud services, mobile networks, anycast deployments, and satellite connectivity, determining location accurately now requires multiple data sources: authoritative registration records, self-published geofeeds, measurement-based evidence, and commercial datasets.
Speakers broadly agreed that the geolocation ecosystem needs greater transparency, verifiability, and collaboration. Wider geofeed adoption, stronger data quality processes, and clearer mechanisms for correcting errors could improve accuracy and trust while protecting user privacy. The discussion reinforced that geolocation should be viewed as a confidence-based assessment rather than absolute truth. Future progress will depend on balancing operational, commercial, regulatory, and privacy requirements, and on ensuring that location data remains explainable, contestable, and fit for purpose.