switch to the December 3, 2016 geoip database
Quote from #19420 (moved):
Alright, I just looked at the latest database file from yesterday (GeoIPASNum2.zip, shasum 997932353f5824eeb760459e0ad5f8ff2226c01c), and I believe we should update to this one rather than keeping the May 23, 2016 file. Some numbers:
| Database | AS number and name | AS number only |
|---|---|---|
| February 24, 2015 | 213,789 | 318 |
| January 4, 2016 | 235,323 | 514 |
| February 1, 2016 | 236,474 | 544 |
| May 23, 2016 | 242,462 | 2,043 |
| June 6, 2016 | 187,415 | 57,773 |
| June 13, 2016 | 188,139 | 57,179 |
| July 18, 2016 | 245,367 | 1,362 |
| October 9, 2016 | 250,573 | 1,372 |
| December 3, 2016 | 250,447 | 1,010 |
I also compared AS number/names to a much older database from February 24, 2015 that I found somewhere else on my hard disk. My idea was that organization names don't change that often. I attached a graph showing how newer databases compared to that old one. It looks like if we're roughly back to normal again.
And this new file apparently doesn't have the issues stated above with AS8620 or AS12876.
So, let me ask: are there important reasons not to switch to the December 3, 2016 database? If I don't hear major concerns by, Thursday, I'll bring this up at the next metrics team meeting and ideally decide to switch.
Once a decision is made and implemented (or not) this ticket ought to be closed.