really facebook?

Sat Dec 29 15:25:36 UTC 2012

Very common.  Most Verizon Wireless data traffic on modern phones is
backhauled to one or more mobile IP home agents based in a few cities.
You'll typically see similar geolocation difficulties on their network for
IPv4 too.  They have another one in Texas, and another one in a different
location I can't remember.  This behavior plus related IP assignment
practices has resulted in ineffective geolocation, often even on a regional
level.

Many mobile phone apps use more than just IP for geolocation though, which
is much more effective.

It's also worth noting that IPV6 geolocation support is quite primitive at
this moment, but in this particular case its not what the problem is.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:

> On 12/27/12 10:29 AM, mike wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/12 9:25 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/12 9:04 AM, mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reloaded their app (yes, I know... sew me) and got this warning:
>>>>
>>>> IP address:     2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:**ff30:2a3d
>>>> Estimated location:     Livingston, NJ, US
>>>>
>>> That's a rather good estimation of where many verizon wireless customers
>>> appear to come from.
>>>
>>
>> This can't mean that all of their v6 traffic is backhauled to NJ, right?
>>
> Wireless carriers have a limited number of PDN gateways in their networks.
> it is entirely plausible that your packets visited new jersey.
>
>
>>>  Which seems pretty bizarre. I'm guessing they must be getting it from
>>>> whois or something based on the address block for Verizon. The reverse
>>>> map according to
>>>>
>>>> host 2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:**ff30:2a3d
>>>>
>>> one assumes they have a an geoip database like they have for ipv4
>>>
>>>>
>>>> comes back with NXDOMAIN. I suppose the real issue here is with Vz
>>>> and why they don't have v6 reverse maps, but it did throw me thinking
>>>> that
>>>> somebody in New Jersey might have hacked my account.
>>>>
>>> Well could certainly wildcard their responses, not sure that dynamic dns
>>> updates would be either scalable or appropiate.
>>>
>>
>> Right, brain fart on my part. Reverse map has nothing to do with a geoip
>> database.
>> It's still strange that it has no reverse map though. I wonder what might
>> break because
>> of that assumption :)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>