[tor-dev] Using MaxMind's GeoIP2 databases in tor, BridgeDB, metrics-*, Onionoo, etc.
nickm at alum.mit.edu
Wed Jan 29 18:53:56 UTC 2014
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Karsten Loesing <karsten at torproject.org> wrote:
> Hi devs,
> you probably know that we use MaxMind's GeoIP database in various of our
> products (list may not be exhaustive):
> How do we switch? First option is to ship their binary database files
> and include their APIs  in our products. Looks there are APIs for C,
> Java, and Python, so all the languages we need for the tools listed
> above. Pros: we can kick out our parsing and lookup code. Cons: we
> need to check if their licenses are compatible, we have to kick out our
> parsing and lookup code and learn their APIs, and we add new dependencies.
I'm not too thrilled with this option. The C code in question, while
not terrible, would need quite a bit of auditing, and auditing binary
format parser code written in C is not how we should be spending our
Further, older versions of Tor still need old formats, so we'd
probably want to consider some kind of conversion tool anyway.
Also, (and less importantly) the new binary format contains lots of
extra information we don't actually use. Sure, our current format is
a bit pointlessly verbose, but it includes less data. Here are file
sizes in KB, compressed:
Note that uncompressed, their file is shorter, since our current
format does indeed kind of suck. But file transfer sizes matter for
us more than disk sizes, I think.
(For some work on a terser format still, see
> Another option is to write a new tool that parses their full databases
> and converts them into file formats we already support. (This would
> also allow us to provide a custom format with multiple database versions
> which would be pretty useful for metrics, see #6471.) Also, it looks
> like their license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> Unported, allows converting their database to a different format. If we
> want to write such a tool, we have a few options:
> - We use their database specification  and write our own parser
> using a language of our choice (read: whoever writes it pretty much
> decides). We could skip the binary search tree part of their files and
> only process the contents. Whenever they change their format, we'll
> have to adapt.
> - We use their Python API  to build our parser, though it looks like
> that requires pip or easy_install and compiling their C API. I don't
> know enough about Python to assess what headaches that's going to cause.
> - We use their Java API  to build our parser, though we're probably
> forced to use Maven rather than Ant. I don't have much experience with
> Maven. Also, using Java probably makes me the default (and only)
> maintainer, which I'd want to avoid if possible.
Writing our own parser seems goofy.
If we're feeling paranoid about memory safety, we might want to avoid
their Python code, since it appears to work by invoking their C code.
The Java code is apparently pure Java. (AFAICT).
(For a tool that's only used for converting files before we ship them,
do we care about memory safety? Probably a bit.)
One more thing to consider here is the actual API. I looked at the
Java API for a bit, and it seems to expose functions for doing
specific geoip queries, but not to expose functions for iterating over
the whole binary tree. Once we get the binary tree, converting a
binary tree to an array of ranges requires a little basic algorithmic
thought, but first, we've got to *get* the binary tree. So some
hacking might be needed.
Another thought is to divide the problem up: write a minimal tool in
Java to convert the document to json or something, and a nice friendly
maintainable conversion tool in Python.
More information about the tor-dev