Subnet Management - 5kdm2 (Application)

Proposal 135413 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: 2 offline nodes replaced with 2 unassigned nodes. Average distance between nodes increases, as well as the number of continents.

There’s an interesting country discrepancy that may be worth revisiting, but it doesn’t involve a node that’s affected by this proposal.

Country Discrepancies (1)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
62yzt 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 7433.905 km 15362.693 km
PROPOSED 479.703 km (+2.5%) 8476.533 km (+14%) 16348.372 km (+6.4%)

This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience). :+1:

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 4 13 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 5 (+20%) 13 13 13 13 13

This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity. :+1:

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 uao44 DOWN :bar_chart: Europe Spain Barcelona 1 (es1) Adam Carbon Twelve gyzti
Remove lk2ji DOWN :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Allentown (aw1) Tierpoint Bigger Capital codio
Add tu7cd UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
Add haeka 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
62yzt UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
jtvnx UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 4 (zh4) Nine.Ch Tomahawk.vc paxme
fpjx3 UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
srgrm UP :bar_chart: Asia India Panvel 2 (pl2) Yotta Krishna Enterprises 7rw6b
oswv7 UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo 3 (ty3) Equinix Starbase a5glg
ttjeo UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 3 (kr1) KT Pindar Technology Limited iubpe
bjhao UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
zos66 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
ihoip UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
wq5v7 UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana (lj1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG gl27f
ocvcv UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 2 (jb2) Africa Data Centres Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd 3bohy


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.

1 Like