Subnet Management - 4ecnw (Application)

Proposal 135424 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

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).

Country Discrepancies (2)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
m4e6a Geneva 2 Switzerland Germany
ns7kv Toronto 2 Canada United States of America (the)
Decentralisation Stats

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). :+1:

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.) →

Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
EXISTING 5 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 5 1 1 1 1 1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136

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.

Node Changes
Action Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
Remove kdeon DOWN :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Allentown (aw1) Tierpoint Bigger Capital codio
Add vw36t UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
7f5c7 UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Queensland 1 (sc1) NEXTDC ANYPOINT PTY LTD srrm2
ns7kv UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
m4e6a UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Geneva 2 (ge2) SafeHost Archery Blockchain SCSp 5atxd
c3syk UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Pindar Technology Limited vzsx4
4vwpn UP :bar_chart: Asia India Navi Mumbai 1 (nm1) Rivram Rivram Inc mpmyf
rwze6 UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
lpkij UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 2 (kr2) Gasan Web3game 5dwhe
5ttnf UP :bar_chart: Europe Lithuania Siauliai 1 (si1) Bacloud Vladyslav Popov ceta5
o42ny UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
rfe2u UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
b5pgw UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
hhixb UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana (lj1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG gl27f


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.