By Topic

IP-Geolocation Mapping for Moderately Connected Internet Regions

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

7 Author(s)
Dan Li ; Dept. of Comput. Sci., Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China ; Jiong Chen ; Chuanxiong Guo ; Yunxin Liu
more authors

Most IP-geolocation mapping schemes [14], [16], [17], [18] take delay-measurement approach, based on the assumption of a strong correlation between networking delay and geographical distance between the targeted client and the landmarks. In this paper, however, we investigate a large region of moderately connected Internet and find the delay-distance correlation is weak. But we discover a more probable rule - with high probability the shortest delay comes from the closest distance. Based on this closest-shortest rule, we develop a simple and novel IP-geolocation mapping scheme for moderately connected Internet regions, called GeoGet. In GeoGet, we take a large number of webservers as passive landmarks and map a targeted client to the geolocation of the landmark that has the shortest delay. We further use JavaScript at targeted clients to generate HTTP/Get probing for delay measurement. To control the measurement cost, we adopt a multistep probing method to refine the geolocation of a targeted client, finally to city level. The evaluation results show that when probing about 100 landmarks, GeoGet correctly maps 35.4 percent clients to city level, which outperforms current schemes such as GeoLim [16] and GeoPing [14] by 270 and 239 percent, respectively, and the median error distance in GeoGet is around 120 km, outperforming GeoLim and GeoPing by 37 and 70 percent, respectively.

Published in:

Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:24 ,  Issue: 2 )