Subnet Management - brlsh (Application)

Proposal 135427 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.

Country Discrepancies (2)

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).

Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
2eqbk Vancouver Canada United States of America (the)
kdldi Brussels 2 Belgium United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
Decentralisation Stats

Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 304.712 km 7392.887 km 16616.248 km
PROPOSED 304.712 km 7521.81 km (+1.7%) 16616.248 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 6 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 6 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 mm6rd DOWN :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Allentown (aw1) Tierpoint Bigger Capital codio
Add i7zdo 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
lus5w UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
kdldi UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels 2 (br2) AtlasEdge Allusion oorkg
2eqbk UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Vancouver (bc1) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs feb2q
pvo54 UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 6 (zh6) Green.ch Sygnum Bank ciprs
gyty5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
gsvxv UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
nj7re UP :bar_chart: Asia India New Delhi 1 (nd1) Marvelous Web3 DC Zenith Code LLC ihcmc
5hni3 UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
qhfut UP :bar_chart: Europe Latvia Riga 1 (rg1) DEAC MB Patrankos šūvis jptla
qbij2 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
xpit6 UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore 2 (sg2) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital qffmn
jx6y5 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.