This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the 3hhby subnet, providing a place to ask questions and make observations about the management of this subnet.
At the time of creating this topic the current subnet configuration is as follows:
The removed node is replaced with a node based in India. This certainly seems positive for decentralisation (many existing nodes are clustered in central Europe). I’ve verified that this node is currently unassigned.
DFINITY will submit an NNS proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, 3hhby, similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Voted to adopt proposal 134177, as the reasoning is sound and the description matches the payload. This proposal replaces 2 healthy nodes, both of which appear as “Active” on the IC dashboard. The proposed change improves decentralisation with respect to data centre owner and country and brings the target topology parameters to within the requirements.
TLDR: Another great proposal, I’m planning to adopt. This brings the subnet inline with the IC Target Topology, by reducing the max number of nodes per country to 2, and the max number of nodes per operator from 2 to 1 (see ‘Decentralisation Stats’ below for more detail).
Note that decentralisation in terms of max number of nodes per continent is negatively effected, but continents are not part of the formal IC Target Topology.
Motivation:
replacing node va53e-afslx-vabwe-whjns-r66hd-coh34-aeb7w-omrcv-3so2u-esow7-aae to optimize network topology
replacing node aicg2-docau-ham5w-5yl6j-k5jj5-tc5yu-eicbx-2plu3-ta6ey-ixhun-xqe to optimize network topology
2 removed node in the US and Japan, replaced with nodes in Lithuania and Latvia.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
242.077 km
7665.692 km
16759.085 km
PROPOSED
242.077 km
6554.725 km (-14.5%)
16759.085 km
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
10
13
12
13
13
PROPOSED
4
11 (+9.1%)
13
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
Green marker represents an added node
Blue marker represents an unchanged node
Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Another good neuron to follow is Synapse (follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
Voted to adopt proposal 134177. The proposal replaces two nodes from subnet 3hhby:
Removed Nodes: va53e, aicg2.
Added Nodes: lsew2 and lmfy6.
The proposal was verified using the DRE tool to verify the metrics stated. All nodes replaced are healthy but this replacements improve the network topology on the data_center_owner and country metrics.
Voted to adopt proposal 134270. The proposal seeks to remove a cordoned node from the subnet and specifies that the associated data centre is being offboarded “after 48 months”. Decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country. The necessary context is provided by this forum post and associated discussion. For future proposals of this type I recommend that the background context be included in the proposal text for ease of verification.
Voted to adopt proposal 134270. This proposal is part of a sequence of steps to remove cordoned nodes from subnets as the associated data centeres are being offboarded after 48 months of their respective DC contracts that are still private and were signed up before the Genesis. There is a great and detailed explanation of this changes in this forum post and the forum thread it is in. In the wiki there is a series of Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months that need to be followed in order for the nodes to continue earning rewards which starts by making a forum post in the following thread. As we can verify no one as come forward with nodes from the DCs in this proposals so I don’t see any issues with the removal of this nodes.
This proposal replaces node ega5w which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active”, for the purpose of examining the stability of another node operator’s nodes. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
I’ve vote to adopt proposal 134406. The decentralisation coefficients were unchanged by the proposal. As can be observed using the IC-API, the eikix node operator has 26 nodes (as stated in the proposal summary). Now that this proposal has executed, one of those nodes is assigned (5u6dm).
Note that the IC-API is not open source. Since learning this, I’m in the process of switching over verifiable sources of this sort of information (rejecting because I’ve not had time to do this yet would be too harsh - even for me ).
The proposal replaces one node from subnet 3hhby:
Removed Node: ega5w
Added Node: 5u6dm
The proposal was verified using the DRE tool to verify the metrics stated. The NP that controlls the node removed as at least one node active and isn’t affected by this replacement.
The proposal replaces healthy Active status but cordoned node tav5h from CH3 DC in Illinois, with healthy Awaiting status node er26s from Korea, improving the decentralization of the subnet with this country change (US 2-1 / KR +1).
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info, also it can be checked here.
This proposal replaces cordoned node tav5h which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active” for the stated reason “offboarding CH3 DC after 48 months”. This is consistent with the information in this post, and the CH3 data centre record and node provider record for MI Servers on the IC dashboard. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
TLDR: I’ve voted to adopt proposal 134485. Obvious decentralisation coefficients are improved (see decentralisation stats below). The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. The node being removed indeed belongs to DC CH3. However, I’m uncomfortable about adopting a proposal using this sort of evidence (given the ease with which such posts could be forged by the proposer).
I’m currently thinking about starting a discussion, and an associated motion proposal, about how to make this sort of thing more verifiable (verifiable consent from relevant parties).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
45.67 km
7010.26 km
16759.085 km
PROPOSED
242.077 km (+430.1%)
7023.062 km (+0.2%)
16759.085 km
This proposal increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
12
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
Green marker represents an added node
Blue marker represents an unchanged node
Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
).