Re: looking for hostname geographic hint validation

[Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM, tabris <tabris () tabris net> wrote:

> On 08/27/2013 12:33 PM, Bradley Huffaker wrote:
> > We are currently working on an algorithm that automatically detects
> > geographic hints inside of hostnames. At this point we are seeking
> > operators who can validate some of our inferences. Please contact me
> > if you can valid one of the inferences below or can provide us with one
> > we have missed.
> >
> > ###########################################
> > # Inferences
> > ###########################################
> >
> > <iata> (International Air Transport Association airport code)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Air_Transport_Association_airport_code
> > <iaco> International Civil Aviation Organization airport code
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation_Organization_airport_code
> > <clli> COMMON LANGUAGE Location Identifier Code
> >        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLLI
> > <city name>  largest populated city with the given name
> >              for example "sandiego" is "San Diego, CA, US"
> >                                          <iata>.yahoo.com
> not in every case is iata helpful for yahoo.
>
> There is lax.yahoo.com and sjc.yahoo.com, but that's really only true
> for a few limited peering-points.
> for non-US, most of the actual data centres have names related to the
> country. in US often more city related, but even that's a bit hairy with
> places like 'mud.yahoo.com'

Hey, MUD made sense at the time; it's the "Mid US Datacenter".  :P
(now, good luck fitting that into any pattern scheme...)


> peering points are still somewhat more random, may be city, country, or
> partner related ['the' is in london, for example]


THE makes sense; everyone knows TeleHouse East.

I actually didn't even know about the IATA acronym
until this thread, so I can honestly say it didn't enter
into the naming discussions; I dare say there's a lot
of other networks out there in a similar situation.
Hitting 93% accuracy is actually pretty mindblowing
from my perspective, given how random some of
the naming choices are.  ^_^;

Matt