Proposal 136691 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: YES
TLDR: Replaces a node that has had a high block failure rate recently (it’s described as dead in the proposal, but the node is currently up). Formal decentralisation metrics (those defined by the IC Target Topology) are unaffected by this proposal.
The replacement node belongs to a new node provider for which there is a degree of controversy. At the very least, the Zarety LLC node provider should be considered to belong to an NP cluster that includes Rivonia Holdings LLC and Blue Ant LLC. Given that neither of these node providers currently have nodes in this subnet, I consider this proposal adoptable.
It’s unclear if the failed blocks were a transient blip, or degradation that can be expected to continue intermittently (it seems reasonable to assume the latter).
Note that the Node Provider Rewards dashboard lags behind by a day or two in terms of metrics it displays (so the failed blocks were not visible on this dashboard yesterday, cc @aligatorr89, @MalithHatananchchige).
Hey @sat, looks like there would be a lot of value in making recent metrics available earlier. Are you the right person to reach out to to request this?
Country Discrepancies (1)
A BDL node again…
| 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 | 479.703 km | 8297.874 km | 16348.372 km |
| PROPOSED | 479.703 km | 8391.692 km (+1.1%) | 17077.023 km (+4.5%) |
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 | 5 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 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 135700
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 |  |
||||||||
| Add | cbtjz | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Isle of Man | Douglas 2 (im2) | Continent8 | Zarety LLC | ylbc3 |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tu7cd | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| 62yzt | UP | |
North America | Canada | Toronto 2 (to2) | Cyxtera | Blockchain Development Labs | 4lp6i |
| jtvnx | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 4 (zh4) | Nine.Ch | Tomahawk.vc | paxme |
| uouxk | UP | |
Asia | Georgia | Tbilisi 1 (tb1) | Cloud9 | George Bassadone | yhfy4 |
| srgrm | UP | |
Asia | India | Panvel 2 (pl2) | Yotta | Krishna Enterprises | 7rw6b |
| oswv7 | UP | |
Asia | Japan | Tokyo 3 (ty3) | Equinix | Starbase | a5glg |
| ttjeo | UP | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 3 (kr1) | KT | Pindar Technology Limited | iubpe |
| zos66 | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
| ihoip | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore (sg1) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | d4bin |
| wq5v7 | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Ljubljana (lj1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | gl27f |
| haeka | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Dallas (dl1) | Flexential | 87m Neuron, LLC | mw64v |
| ocvcv | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Gauteng 2 (jb2) | Africa Data Centres | Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd | 3bohy |
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.
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.