This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the 4ecnw 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:
DFINITY will submit an NNS proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, 4ecnw, similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Voted to adopt proposal 134271. 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 unchanged. 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 134271. 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.
TLDR: I’ll adopt. The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. Decentralisation stats look good.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
317.676 km
7439.259 km
16262.926 km
PROPOSED
476.502 km (+50%)
7598.568 km (+2.1%)
16040.185 km (-1.4%)
This proposal slightly 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
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13
13
13
13
13
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
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.
OBS a tiny Typo in the summary instead of SG3 DC it should be TY2. The link is correct as it links to STARBASE NP that has the 3 Tokyo locations, and Katie does refference the TY2 nodes, that also appear in the cordoned list. So even if it hadn’t been fixed in commit my vote would still be yes.
The proposal aims to replace two cordoned healthy Active status node 656go from the AN1 Data Center in Belgium, and cordoned healthy Active status node lvac3 from the TY2 Data Center in Tokyo, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node rwze6 from Tokyo2 and with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node lpkij from Korea, without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
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 2 nodes, due to offboarding AN1 and TY2 (not SG3 - typo in proposal text) data centres. Decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology. Data centre details are consistent with the links provided in the proposal.
Replaces cordoned nodes 656go and lvac3 with nodes rwze6 and lpkij on subnet 4ecnw.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard TY2(typo in proposal) and AN1 DCs consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet 4ecnw, appearing in the decentralization tool as “DOWN”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: One offline node replaced with an unassigned node. IC Target Topology metrics remain unchanged, but the average distance between nodes increases slightly.
There a relatively large country discrepancy (in terms of distance). Given that ipinfo.io uses a probe network for geolocation, I’m surprised to see such a large discrepancy. Something to revisit (given that the node in question isn’t directly affected by this proposal).
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
468.191 km
7638.976 km
16403.082 km
PROPOSED
492.224 km (+5.1%)
7772.585 km (+1.7%)
16403.082 km
This proposal slightly 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
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13
13
13
13
13
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)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron (coming soon) if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA △
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
1
2
13
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
1
2
13
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals.
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals.
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
TLDR:
The proposal replaces offline nodes in Allentown (North America).
No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed and decentralization stats remain the same. I vote to adopt
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node kdeon from the AW1 DC in Pennsylvania, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node vw36t from Dallas without any change to decentralization.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
