Your Proxy Says “New York.” How Do You Verify It?
“Location: New York” is a product label, not a universal fact that every website will agree with.
I work with the 98IP team. When we evaluate a location-sensitive proxy workflow, we test a set of independent signals instead of trusting one IP lookup page.
Why location results disagree
IP geolocation is inferred from routing, registration data, operator-published geofeeds, observed traffic, and database refresh schedules. Country classification is usually more reliable than city classification. A prefix that recently moved may be correct operationally while an older database still reports its previous location.
Write the acceptance rule first
Define what the application needs:
- country match for localization;
- state or province match for regional availability;
- metro-level city confidence for ad verification;
- ASN and network type for residential or mobile characteristics;
- DNS alignment where resolver geography affects results.
Avoid a vague “must be accurate” rule. A useful example is: country must match on every session, ASN must fit the product type, and city may vary inside the same metro area.
Build a test matrix
For each advertised location, test at least five fresh sessions. Keep protocol, destination, and headers constant. Record:
timestamp_utc
proxy_endpoint
exit_ip
country / region / city
asn / organization
dns_resolver_region
latency
session_id
Repeat at different times. Location data and routing can change, and one successful request is not a distribution test.
Compare independent signals
Use more than one location dataset and score agreement separately at country, region, and city levels. Then inspect the prefix, ASN, and organization.
A country match with an ASN that contradicts the advertised network type deserves investigation. A city mismatch in only one database may simply reflect a stale record.
DNS needs its own test
An expected exit IP does not guarantee that DNS resolution occurs in the same region. Resolver geography can change localization or risk scoring. Decide whether your workflow requires strict exit-to-DNS alignment or only protection against exposing the client network.
Sticky and rotating sessions have different tests
For a sticky session, repeat requests during the promised window and verify that IP, ASN, and country remain stable.
For a rotating session, verify the trigger and the distribution. Unexpected cross-country changes fail a region-locked test even when every individual IP connects successfully.
Do not confuse target classification with proxy location
A target may use its own database, cookies, account history, language settings, or device signals. Use a clean browser profile and controlled headers. When the target disagrees with several independent checks, record it as target-specific classification before blaming the proxy.
A practical scorecard
| Signal | Suggested decision |
|---|---|
| Country | Required for every session |
| Region | Required for state/province workflows |
| City | Evaluate within a metro confidence range |
| ASN | Must fit the promised network type |
| DNS | Pass or accepted variance by use case |
| Session behavior | Must match sticky/rotating policy |
| Latency | Report separately from location accuracy |
What to do with mismatches
If one database disagrees, retest after its refresh cycle and compare operator geofeed data. If several sources disagree, isolate the prefix and ask the provider for clarification. If the ASN or network type is wrong, remove that pool from workflows that depend on the classification.
For authorized regional testing, 98IP publishes available location and session options at https://en.98ip.com/?k=dev.
Always follow target terms, applicable law, rate limits, and data-minimization requirements.
