A Format for Self-published IP
Geolocation FeedsLoon LLC1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain ViewCalifornia94043United States of Americaek@loon.comGoogle Switzerland GmbHBrandschenkestrasse 1108002ZürichSwitzerlandkduleba@google.comGoogle Switzerland GmbHBrandschenkestrasse 1108002ZürichSwitzerlandzszami@google.comGoogle Switzerland GmbHBrandschenkestrasse 1108002ZürichSwitzerlandsmoser@google.comGoogle1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain View, CA94043USwarren@kumari.netThis document records a format whereby a network operator can publish
a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information,
colloquially termed a geolocation "feed". Interested parties can poll
and parse these feeds to update or merge with other geolocation data
sources and procedures. This format intentionally only allows specifying
coarse level location.Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one
conference location to the next have already experimentally published
small geolocation feeds.This document describes a currently deployed format. At
least one consumer (Google) has incorporated these feeds into a
geolocation data pipeline, and a significant number of ISPs are
using it to inform them where their prefixes should be geolocated.Providers of services over the Internet have grown to depend on
best-effort geolocation information to improve the user experience.
Locality information can aid in directing traffic to the nearest
serving location, inferring likely native language, and providing
additional context for services involving search queries.When an ISP, for example, changes the location where an IP prefix
is deployed, services which make use of geolocation information may
begin to suffer degraded performance. This can lead to customer
complaints, possibly to the ISP directly. Dissemination of correct
geolocation data is complicated by the lack of any centralized means
to coordinate and communicate geolocation information to all
interested consumers of the data.This document records a format whereby a network operator (an ISP,
an enterprise, or any organization which deems the geolocation of its
IP prefixes to be of concern) can publish a mapping of IP address
prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a
"geolocation feed". Interested parties can poll and parse these feeds
to update or merge with other geolocation data sources and
procedures.This document describes a currently deployed format. At
least one consumer (Google) has incorporated these feeds into a
geolocation data pipeline, and a significant number of ISPs are
using it to inform them where their prefixes should be geolocated.The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 and when,
and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.As this is an informational document about a data format and set of
operational practices presently in use, requirements notation captures
the design goals of the authors and implementors.This document describes both a format and a mechanism for
publishing data, with the assumption that the network operator to whom
operational responsibility has been delegated for any published data
wishes it to be public. Any privacy risk is bounded by the format, and
feed publishers MAY omit prefixes or any location field associated with
a given prefix to further protect privacy (see
for details about which fields exactly may be omitted). Feed publishers
assume the responsibility of determining which data should be made
public.This document does not incorporate a mechanism to communicate
acceptable use policies for self-published data. Publication itself is
inferred as a desire by the publisher for the data to be usefully
consumed, similar to the publication of information like host names,
cryptographic keys, and SPF records in the
DNS.The format described here was developed to address the need of
network operators to rapidly and usefully share geolocation information
changes. Originally, there arose a specific case where regional
operators found it desirable to publish location changes rather than
wait for geolocation algorithms to "learn" about them. Later, technical
conferences which frequently use the same network prefixes advertised
from different conference locations experimented by publishing
geolocation feeds, updated in advance of network location changes, in
order to better serve conference attendees.At its simplest, the mechanism consists of a network operator
publishing a file (the "geolocation feed"), which contains several text
entries, one per line. Each entry is keyed by a unique (within the feed)
IP prefix (or single IP address) followed by a sequence of network
locality attributes to be ascribed to the given prefix.For operational simplicity, every feed should contain data about
all IP addresses the provider wants to publish. Alternatives, like
publishing only entries for IP addresses whose geolocation data has
changed or differ from current observed geolocation behavior "at
large", are likely to be too operationally complex.Feeds MUST use UTF-8 character encoding.
Lines are delimited by a line break (CRLF) (as specifed in
), and blank lines are ignored.
Text from a '#' character to the end of the current line is treated
as a comment only and is similarily ignored (note that this does not
stricly follow , which has no support for
comments).
Feed lines that are not comments MUST be in comma separated value
(CSV) format as described in . Each feed entry
is a text line of the form:
The IP prefix field is REQUIRED, all others are OPTIONAL (can be
empty), though the requisite minimum number of commas SHOULD be
present.REQUIRED. Each IP prefix field MUST be either a single IP
address or an IP prefix in CIDR notation in conformance with section
3.1 of for IPv4 or section
2.3 of for IPv6.Examples include "192.0.2.1" and "192.0.2.0/24" for IPv4 and
"2001:db8::1" and "2001:db8::/32" for IPv6.OPTIONAL. The alpha2code field, if non-empty, MUST be a 2 letter
ISO country code conforming to ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 . Parsers SHOULD treat this field
case-insensitively.Earlier versions of this document called this field "country",
and it may still be referred to as such in existing
tools / interfaces.Parsers MAY additionally support other 2 letter codes outside
the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 codes. For example, 2 letter codes from the
"Exceptionally reserved codes" set may appear in this field,
e.g. "UK"
or "EU".Examples include "US" for the United States, "JP" for Japan,
and "PL" for Poland.OPTIONAL. The region field, if non-empty, MUST be a ISO region
code conforming to ISO 3166-2 . Parsers
SHOULD treat this field case-insensitively.Examples include "ID-RI" for the Riau province of Indonesia and
"NG-RI" for the Rivers province in Nigeria.OPTIONAL. The city field, if non-empty, SHOULD be free UTF-8
text, excluding the comma (',') character.Examples include "Dublin", "New York", and "São Paulo"
(specifically "S" followed by 0xc3, 0xa3, and "o Paulo").OPTIONAL, DEPRECATED. The postal code field, if non-empty,
SHOULD be free UTF-8 text, excluding the comma (',') character.
The use of this field is deprecated; consumers of feeds should
be able to parse feeds containing these fields, but new feeds
SHOULD NOT include this field, due to the granularity of this
information. See for additional
discussion.Examples include "106-6126" (in Minato ward, Tokyo, Japan).Feed publishers may indicate that some IP prefixes should not
have any associated geolocation information. It may be that some
prefixes under their administrative control are reserved, not yet
allocated or deployed, or are in the process of being redeployed
elsewhere and existing geolocation information can, from the
perspective of the publisher, safely be discarded.This special case can be indicated by explicitly leaving blank
all fields which specify any degree of geolocation information. For
example: Historically, the user-assigned alpha2code identifier of "ZZ" has been
used for this same purpose. This is not necessarily preferred, and
no specific interpretation of any of the other user-assigned alpha2code
codes is currently defined.Feed entries missing an IP address or prefix field or having an
IP address or prefix field which fails to parse correctly MUST be
discarded.While publishers SHOULD follow style for
IPv6 prefix fields, consumers MUST nevertheless accept all valid
string representations.Duplicate IP address or prefix entries MUST be considered an
error, and consumer implementations SHOULD log the repeated entries
for further administrative review. Publishers SHOULD take measures
to ensure there is one and only one entry per IP address and
prefix.Multiple entries which constitute nested prefixes are permitted.
Consumers SHOULD consider the entry with the longest matching prefix
(i.e. the "most specific") to be the best matching entry for a given
IP address.Feed entries with non-empty optional fields which fail to parse,
either in part or in full, SHOULD be discarded. It is RECOMMENDED
that they also be logged for further administrative review.For compatibility with future additional fields, a parser MUST
ignore any fields beyond those it expects. The data from fields
which are expected and which parse successfully MUST still be
considered valid. Per no extensions to
this format are in use nor are any anticipated.Example entries using different IP address formats and describing
locations at alpha2code ("country code"), region, and city granularity level,
respectively: The IETF network publishes geolocation information for the meeting
prefixes, and generally just comment out the last meeting information
and append the new meeting information. The
at the time of this writing contains:Experimentally, RIPE has published geolocation information for
their conference network prefixes, which change location in accordance
with each new event. at the time of
writing contains: Similarly, ICANN has published geolocation information for their
portable conference network prefixes. at
the time of writing contains: A longer example is the Google Corp
Geofeed, which lists the geo-location information for Google corporate
offices.At the time of writing, Google processes approximately 400 feeds
comprising more than 750,000 IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes.Consumers MAY treat published feed data as a hint only and MAY choose
to prefer other sources of geolocation information for any given IP
prefix. Regardless of a consumer's stance with respect to a given
published feed, there are some points of note for sensibly and
effectively consuming published feeds.The integrity of published information SHOULD be protected by
securing the means of publication, for example by using HTTP over TLS
. Whenever possible, consumers SHOULD prefer
retrieving geolocation feeds in a manner that guarantees integrity of
the feed.Consumers of self-published IP geolocation feeds SHOULD perform
some form of verification that the publisher is in fact authoritative
for the addresses in the feed. The actual means of verification is
likely dependent upon the way in which the feed is discovered. Ad hoc
shared URIs, for example, will likely require an ad hoc verification
process. Future automated means of feed discovery SHOULD have an
accompanying automated means of verification.A consumer should only trust geolocation information for IP addresses
or prefixes for which the publisher has been verified as
administratively authoritative. All other geolocation feed entries
should be ignored and logged for further administrative review.Errors and inaccuracies may occur at many levels, and publication
and consumption of geolocation data are no exceptions. To the extent
practical, consumers SHOULD take steps to verify the accuracy of
published locality. Verification methodology, resolution of
discrepancies, and preference for alternative sources of data are left
to the discretion of the feed consumer.Consumers SHOULD decide on discrepancy thresholds and SHOULD flag
for administrative review feed entries which exceed set
thresholds.As a publisher can change geolocation data at any time and without
notification, consumers SHOULD implement mechanisms to periodically
refresh local copies of feed data. In the absence of any other refresh
timing information, it is recommended that consumers SHOULD refresh
feeds no less often than weekly, and no more often than is likely
to cause issues to the publisher.For feeds available via HTTPS (or HTTP), the publisher MAY
communicate refresh timing information by means of the standard HTTP
expiration model (section
13.2 of ). Specifically, publishers can
include either an Expires
header or a Cache-Control
header specifying the max-age. Where practical, consumers
SHOULD refresh feed information before the expiry time is reached.Publishers of geolocation feeds are advised to have fully considered
any and all privacy implications of the disclosure of such information
for the users of the described networks prior to publication. A thorough
comprehension of the security
considerations of a chosen geolocation policy is highly
recommended, including an understanding of some of the limitations of
information obscurity (see also ).As noted in , each location field in an entry is
optional, in order to support expressing only the level of specificity
which the publisher has deemed acceptable. There is no requirement that
the level of specificity be consistent across all entries within a feed.
In particular, the Postal Code field () can
provide very specific geolocation, sometimes within a building. Such
specific Postal Code values MUST NOT be published in geofeeds without
the express consent of the parties being located.Operators who publish geolocation information are strongly encouraged
to inform affected users/customers of this fact and of the potential
privacy-related consequences and trade-offs.While not originally done in conjunction with the working group, Richard Barnes observed that this work
is nevertheless consistent with that which the group has defined, both
for address format and for privacy. The data elements in geolocation
feeds are equivalent to the following XML structure (vis. ): countryregioncitypostal_code
]]>Providing geolocation information to this granularity is equivalent
to the following privacy policy (vis. the definition of the
'building' level of disclosure): building
]]>As there is no true security in the obscurity of the location of any
given IP address, self-publication of this data fundamentally opens no
new attack vectors. For publishers, self-published data may increase
the ease with which such location data might be exploited (it can, for
example, make easy the discovery of prefixes populated with customers
as distinct from prefixes not generally in use).For consumers, feed retrieval processes may receive input from
potentially hostile sources (e.g. in the event of hijacked traffic). As
such, proper input validation and defense measures MUST be taken (see
the discussion in ).Similarly, consumers who do not perform sufficient verification of
published data bear the same risks as from other forms of geolocation
configuration errors (see the discussion in
and ).Validation of a feed's contents includes verifying that the publisher
is authoritative for the IP prefixes included in the feed. Failure to
verify IP prefix authority would, for example, allow ISP Bob to make
geolocation statements about IP space held by ISP Alice. At this time
only out-of-band verification methods are implemented (i.e. an ISP's
feed may be verified against publicly available IP allocation data).
In order to more flexibly support future extensions, use of a more
expressive feed format has been suggested. Use of JavaScript Object
Notation (JSON, ), specifically, has been
discussed. However, at the time of writing no such specification nor
implementation exists. Nevertheless, work on extensions is deferred
until a more suitable format has been selected.The authors are planning on writing a document describing such a
new format. This document describes a currently deployed and used
format. Given the extremely limited extensibility of the present format
no extensions to it are anticipated. Extensibility requirements are
instead expected to be integral to the development of a new format.The issue of finding, and later verifying, geolocation feeds is not
formally specified in this document. At this time, only ad hoc feed
discovery and verification has a modicum of established practice (see
below); discussion of other mechanisms has been removed for clarity.To date, geolocation feeds have been shared informally in the form
of HTTPS URIs exchanged in email threads. Three of example URIs
documented below (, ,
) describe networks that change locations periodically,
the operators and operational practices of which are well known within
their respective technical communities.The contents of the feeds are verified by a similarly ad hoc
process including: personal knowledge of the parties involved in the exchange,
andcomparison of feed-advertised prefixes with the BGP-advertised
prefixes of Autonomous System Numbers known to be operated by the
publishers.Ad hoc mechanisms, while useful for early experimentation by
producers and consumers, are unlikely to be adequate for long-term,
widespread use by multiple parties. Future versions of any such
self-published geolocation feed mechanism SHOULD address scalability
concerns by defining a means for automated discovery and verification
of operational authority of advertised prefixes.Previous versions of this document referenced use of the
WHOIS service () operated by RIRs as well as
possible DNS-based schemes to discover and validate geofeeds.
To the authors' knowledge support for such mechanisms has never been
implemented, and this speculative text has been removed to avoid
ambiguity.This document makes no requests of the IANA.The authors would like to express their gratitude to reviewers and
early implementers, including but not limited to Mikael Abrahamsson,
Andrew Alston, Ray Bellis, John Bond, Alissa Cooper, Andras Erdei,
Stephen Farrell, Marco Hogewoning, Mike Joseph, Maciej Kuzniar,
George Michaelson, Menno Schepers, Justyna Sidorska, Pim van Pelt, and
Bjoern A. Zeeb.Richard L. Barnes and Andy Newton in particular contributed
substantial review, text, and advice.ISO 3166-1 decoding tableInternational Organization for
StandardizationISO 3166-2:2007International Organization for
StandardizationIETF Meeting Network Geolocation DataInternet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) NOCRIPE NCC Meeting Geolocation DataRéseaux IP Européens
Network Coordination CentreICANN Meeting Geolocation DataInternet Corporation For Assigned
Names and NumbersGoogle Corp GeofeedGoogle, LLCIETF geopriv Working GroupInternet Engineering Task
ForcePython IP address manipulation libraryGoogle Inc.Google Inc.Included here is a simple format validator in Python for
self-published ipgeo feeds. This tool reads CSV data in the
self-published ipgeo feed format from the standard input and performs
basic validation. It is intended for use by feed publishers before
launching a feed. Note that this validator does not verify the
uniqueness of every IP prefix entry within the feed as a whole, but only
verifies the syntax of each single line from within the feed. A complete
validator MUST also ensure IP prefix uniqueness.The main source file "ipgeo_feed_validator.py" follows. It requires
use of the open source ipaddr Python library for IP address and CIDR
parsing and validation .
#!/usr/bin/python
#
# Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of
# the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and
# binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to,
# and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD
# License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
# Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
"""Simple format validator for self-published ipgeo feeds.
This tool reads CSV data in the self-published ipgeo feed format from
the standard input and performs basic validation. It is intended for
use by feed publishers before launching a feed.
"""
import csv
import ipaddr
import re
import sys
class IPGeoFeedValidator(object):
def __init__(self):
self.prefixes = {}
self.line_number = 0
self.output_log = {}
self.SetOutputStream(sys.stderr)
def Validate(self, feed):
"""Check validity of an IPGeo feed.
Args:
feed: iterable with feed lines
"""
for line in feed:
self._ValidateLine(line)
def SetOutputStream(self, logfile):
"""Controls where the output messages go do (STDERR by default).
Use None to disable logging.
Args:
logfile: a file object (e.g., sys.stdout or sys.stderr) or None.
"""
self.output_stream = logfile
def CountErrors(self, severity):
"""How many ERRORs or WARNINGs were generated."""
return len(self.output_log.get(severity, []))
############################################################
def _ValidateLine(self, line):
line = line.rstrip('\r\n')
self.line_number += 1
self.line = line.split('#')[0]
self.is_correct_line = True
if self._ShouldIgnoreLine(line):
return
fields = [field for field in csv.reader([line])][0]
self._ValidateFields(fields)
self._FlushOutputStream()
def _ShouldIgnoreLine(self, line):
line = line.strip()
if line.startswith('#'):
return True
return len(line) == 0
############################################################
def _ValidateFields(self, fields):
assert(len(fields) > 0)
is_correct = self._IsIPAddressOrPrefixCorrect(fields[0])
if len(fields) > 1:
if not self._IsAlpha2CodeCorrect(fields[1]):
is_correct = False
if len(fields) > 2 and not self._IsRegionCodeCorrect(fields[2]):
is_correct = False
if len(fields) != 5:
self._ReportWarning('5 fields were expected (got %d).'
% len(fields))
############################################################
def _IsIPAddressOrPrefixCorrect(self, field):
if '/' in field:
return self._IsCIDRCorrect(field)
return self._IsIPAddressCorrect(field)
def _IsCIDRCorrect(self, cidr):
try:
ipprefix = ipaddr.IPNetwork(cidr)
if ipprefix.network._ip != ipprefix._ip:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Network.')
return False
if ipprefix.is_private:
self._ReportError('IP Address must not be private.')
return False
except:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Network.')
return False
return True
def _IsIPAddressCorrect(self, ipaddress):
try:
ip = ipaddr.IPAddress(ipaddress)
except:
self._ReportError('Incorrect IP Address.')
return False
if ip.is_private:
self._ReportError('IP Address must not be private.')
return False
return True
############################################################
def _IsAlpha2CodeCorrect(self, alpha2code):
if len(alpha2code) == 0:
return True
if len(alpha2code) != 2 or not alpha2code.isalpha():
self._ReportError(
'Alpha 2 code must be in the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 format.')
return False
return True
def _IsRegionCodeCorrect(self, region_code):
if len(region_code) == 0:
return True
if '-' not in region_code:
self._ReportError('Region code must be in the ISO 3166-2 format.')
return False
parts = region_code.split('-')
if not self._IsAlpha2CodeCorrect(parts[0]):
return False
return True
############################################################
def _ReportError(self, message):
self._ReportWithSeverity('ERROR', message)
def _ReportWarning(self, message):
self._ReportWithSeverity('WARNING', message)
def _ReportWithSeverity(self, severity, message):
self.is_correct_line = False
output_line = '%s: %s\n' % (severity, message)
if severity not in self.output_log:
self.output_log[severity] = []
self.output_log[severity].append(output_line)
if self.output_stream is not None:
self.output_stream.write(output_line)
def _FlushOutputStream(self):
if self.is_correct_line: return
if self.output_stream is None: return
self.output_stream.write('line %d: %s\n\n'
% (self.line_number, self.line))
############################################################
def main():
feed_validator = IPGeoFeedValidator()
feed_validator.Validate(sys.stdin)
if feed_validator.CountErrors('ERROR'):
sys.exit(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
]]>A unit test file, "ipgeo_feed_validator_test.py" is provided as well.
It provides basic test coverage of the code above, though does not test
correct handling of non-ASCII UTF-8 strings.
#!/usr/bin/python
#
# Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of
# the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and
# binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to,
# and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD
# License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
# Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
import sys
from ipgeo_feed_validator import IPGeoFeedValidator
class IPGeoFeedValidatorTest(object):
def __init__(self):
self.validator = IPGeoFeedValidator()
self.validator.SetOutputStream(None)
self.successes = 0
self.failures = 0
def Run(self):
self.TestFeedLine('# asdf', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine(' ', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('asdf', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('asdf,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('aaaa::,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('zzzz::,US', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine(',US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.888', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.asdf', 1, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('2001:db8:cafe::/48,PL,PL-MZ,,02-784', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('2001:db8:cafe::/48', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,PL', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,PL,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,ZZ,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,USA,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,99,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,USA-CA,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,USA,USA-CA,,', 2, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,94043', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88,US,US-CA,Mountain View,94043,'
'1600 Ampthitheatre Parkway', 0, 1)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.0/24,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.88/32,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('55.66.77.0/35,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('172.15.30.1,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('172.28.30.1,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('192.167.100.1,US,,,', 0, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('192.168.100.1,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('10.0.5.9,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('10.0.5.0/24,US,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('fc00::/48,PL,,,', 1, 0)
self.TestFeedLine('fe00::/48,PL,,,', 0, 0)
print ('%d tests passed, %d failed'
% (self.successes, self.failures))
def IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity(self, severity, expected_msg_count):
msg_count = self.validator.CountErrors(severity)
if msg_count != expected_msg_count:
print ('TEST FAILED: %s\nexpected %d %s[s], observed %d\n%s\n' % (
self.validator.line, expected_msg_count, severity, msg_count,
str(self.validator.output_log[severity])))
return False
return True
def IsOutputLogCorrect(self, new_errors, new_warnings):
retval = True
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity('ERROR', new_errors):
retval = False
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrectAtSeverity('WARNING', new_warnings):
retval = False
return retval
def TestFeedLine(self, line, warning_count, error_count):
self.validator.output_log['WARNING'] = []
self.validator.output_log['ERROR'] = []
self.validator._ValidateLine(line)
if not self.IsOutputLogCorrect(warning_count, error_count):
self.failures += 1
return False
self.successes += 1
return True
if __name__ == '__main__':
IPGeoFeedValidatorTest().Run()
]]>