skip to main content
10.1145/3534678.3539049acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Connecting the Hosts: Street-Level IP Geolocation with Graph Neural Networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Pinpointing the geographic location of an IP address is important for a range of location-aware applications spanning from targeted advertising to fraud prevention. The majority of traditional measurement-based and recent learning-based methods either focus on the efficient employment of topology or utilize data mining to find clues of the target IP in publicly available sources. Motivated by the limitations in existing works, we propose a novel framework named GraphGeo, which provides a complete processing methodology for street-level IP geolocation with the application of graph neural networks. It incorporates IP hosts knowledge and kinds of neighborhood relationships into the graph to infer spatial topology for high-quality geolocation prediction. We explicitly consider and alleviate the negative impact of uncertainty caused by network jitter and congestion, which are pervasive in complicated network environments. Extensive evaluations across three large-scale real-world datasets demonstrate that GraphGeo significantly reduces the geolocation errors compared to the state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, the proposed framework has been deployed on the web platform as an online service for 6 months.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

KDD22-fp549.mp4

mp4

247.3 MB

References

  1. Sercan Ö. Arik and Tomas Pfister. 2021. TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning. In AAAI. 6679--6687.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Uri M Ascher, Steven J Ruuth, and Raymond J Spiteri. 1997. Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations. Appl. Numer. Math. (1997), 151--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tian Qi Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David K Duvenaud. 2018. Neural ordinary differential equations. In NeurIPS. 6572--6583.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fan RK Chung and Fan Chung Graham. 1997. Spectral graph theory. American Mathematical Soc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ovidiu Dan, Vaibhav Parikh, and Brian D Davison. 2021. IP Geolocation Using Traceroute Location Propagation and IP Range Location Interpolation. In WWW. 332--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brian Eriksson, Paul Barford, Joel Sommers, and Robert Nowak. 2010. A learning-based approach for IP geolocation. In PAM. 171--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. 2019. Graph neural networks for social recommendation. In WWW. 417--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bahare Fatemi, Layla El Asri, and Seyed Mehran Kazemi. 2021. SLAPS: Self- Supervision Improves Structure Learning for Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Nian Li, Yinfeng Li, Yingrong Qin, Jinghua Piao, Yuhan Quan, Jianxin Chang, Depeng Jin, Xiangnan He, and Yong Li. 2021. Graph Neural Networks for Recommender Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions. arXiv:2109.12843Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bamba Gueye, Artur Ziviani, Mark Crovella, and Serge Fdida. 2006. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. Transactions On Networking (2006), 1219--1232.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. William L Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In NeurIPS. 1024--1034.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Peter Hillmann, Lars Stiemert, Gabi Dreo, and Oliver Rose. 2020. On the Path to High Precise IP Geolocation: A Self-Optimizing Model. arXiv:2004.01531Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Peter Hillmann, Lars Stiemert, Gabi Dreo Rodosek, and Oliver Rose. 2015. Modelling of IP Geolocation by use of Latency Measurements. In CNSM. 173--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradley Huffaker, Marina Fomenkov, and KC Claffy. 2014. DRoP: DNS-based router positioning. Comput. Commun. Rev. (2014), 5--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hao Jiang, Yaoqing Liu, and Jeanna N Matthews. 2016. IP geolocation estimation using neural networks with stable landmarks. In INFOCOM WKSHPS. 170--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Weiwei Jiang and Jiayun Luo. 2021. Graph Neural Network for Traffic Forecasting: A Survey. arXiv:2101.11174Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ethan Katz-Bassett, John P John, Arvind Krishnamurthy, David Wetherall, Thomas Anderson, and Yatin Chawathe. 2006. Towards IP geolocation using delay and topology measurements. In SIGCOMM. 71--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In NeurIPS. 3146--3154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. 2014. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Variational Graph Auto-Encoders. arXiv:1611.07308Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sándor Laki, Péter Mátray, Péter Hága, Tamás Sebok, István Csabai, and Gábor Vattay. 2011. Spotter: A model based active geolocation service. In INFOCOM. 3173--3181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Qiang Li, Zhihao Wang, Dawei Tan, Jinke Song, Haining Wang, Limin Sun, and Jiqiang Liu. 2021. GeoCAM: An IP-Based Geolocation Service Through Fine- Grained and Stable Webcam Landmarks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking (2021), 1798--1812.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dawen Liang, Rahul G Krishnan, Matthew D Hoffman, and Tony Jebara. 2018. Variational autoencoders for collaborative filtering. In WWW. 689--698.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Hao Liu, Yaoxue Zhang, Yuezhi Zhou, Di Zhang, Xiaoming Fu, and KK Ramakrishnan. 2014. Mining checkins from location-sharing services for client-independent ip geolocation. In INFOCOM. 619--627.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. David Moore, Ram Periakaruppan, Jim Donohoe, and Kimberly Claffy. 2000. Where in the world is netgeo.caida.org?. In INET.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Lakshminarayanan Subramanian. 2001. An investigation of geographic mapping techniques for internet hosts. In SIGCOMM. 173--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Afshin Rahimi, Trevor Cohn, and Timothy Baldwin. 2018. Semi-supervised User Geolocation via Graph Convolutional Networks. In ACL. 2009--2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Shikhar Vashishth, Soumya Sanyal, Vikram Nitin, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Composition-based Multi-Relational Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NeurIPS. 5998--6008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Meng Wang, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Neural graph collaborative filtering. In SIGIR. 165--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yong Wang, Daniel Burgener, Marcel Flores, Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, and Cheng Huang. 2011. Towards Street-Level Client-Independent IP Geolocation.. In NSDI. USENIX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Yucheng Wang, Hongsong Zhu, Jinfa Wang, Jie Liu, Yong Wang, and Limin Sun. 2020. XLBoost-Geo: An IP Geolocation System Based on Extreme Landmark Boosting. arXiv:2010.13396Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhihao Wang, Qiang Li, Jinke Song, Haining Wang, and Limin Sun. 2020. Towards IP-based geolocation via fine-grained and stable webcam landmarks. In WWW. 1422--1432.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Di He, Yanming Shen, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. Do Transformers Really Perform Badly for Graph Representation?. In NeurIPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Chuxu Zhang, Dongjin Song, Chao Huang, Ananthram Swami, and Nitesh V Chawla. 2019. Heterogeneous graph neural network. In SIGKDD. 793--803.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Qian Zhao, Fei Wang, Can Huang, and Chuan Yu. 2020. Improving IP geolocation databases based on multi-method classification. In ASID. 44--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Ting Zhong, Tianliang Wang, Fan Zhou, Goce Trajcevski, Kunpeng Zhang, and Yi Yang. 2020. Interpreting Twitter user geolocation. In ACL. 853--859.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dingyuan Zhu, Ziwei Zhang, Peng Cui, and Wenwu Zhu. 2019. Robust Graph Convolutional Networks Against Adversarial Attacks. In SIGKDD. 1399--1407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Artur Ziviani, Serge Fdida, José F De Rezende, and Otto Carlos MB Duarte. 2005. Improving the accuracy of measurement-based geographic location of Internet hosts. Comput. Networks (2005), 503--523.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    KDD '22: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
    August 2022
    5033 pages
    ISBN:9781450393850
    DOI:10.1145/3534678

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 14 August 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

    Upcoming Conference

    KDD '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader