This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the cv73p 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, cv73p, similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Voted to adopt proposal 134179, as the reasoning is sound and the description matches the payload. This proposal replaces 2 healthy nodes, both of which appear as “Active” on the IC dashboard. The proposed change improves decentralisation with respect to country and brings the target topology parameters to within the requirements.
TLDR: I’m planning to adopt. This proposal brings this subnet inline with the IC Target Topology, by reducing the max number of nodes per country from 3 to 2.
This does however increase the max number of nodes per continent from 6 to 8. Nevertheless, countries are considered to be more important than continents (and are a formal part of the IC Target Topology, whereas continents are not).
Motivation:
replacing node m2yt5-mn7lw-76bqj-ijlgn-55n3k-xbjzl-43olv-6xi4p-2ecp4-eipxu-xae to optimize network topology
replacing node jsaui-j3qrn-3i3m3-xdn2s-bad3f-5kwlu-36gej-i75ik-5fjrg-z3jge-bqe to optimize network topology
2 American nodes replaced with 2 European nodes.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
6851.289 km
15377.131 km
PROPOSED
0 km
6014.926 km (-12.2%)
15377.131 km
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
3
10
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
3
11 (+9.1%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
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)
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.
Another good neuron to follow is Synapse (follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
The proposal replaces 2 healthy Active status nodes form Fremont and Portland, both from US this way reducing Country from 4 to 2, in order to optimize network topology.
Voted to adopt proposal 134179. The proposal replaces two nodes from subnet cv73p:
Removed Nodes: m2yt5, jsaui.
Added Nodes: 2mmpk and ax6zb.
The proposal was verified using the DRE tool to verify the metrics stated. All nodes replaced are healthy but this replacements improve the network topology on the country metric reducing the number of nodes in the US from 4 to 2.
This proposal replaces node njsmq which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active” for the stated reason “offboarding the second rack of nodes in the mb1 DC after 48 months”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country 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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: Decentralisation stats are slightly improved (see Decentralisation Stats below) and there is a clear public declaration for the cordoned node which is referred to in the proposal summary. 1 cordoned node in Europe replaced with an unassigned node in Asia.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
104.032 km
6044.448 km
16654.257 km
PROPOSED
224.918 km (+116.2%)
6586.338 km (+9%)
16654.257 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
3
10
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
3
11 (+9.1%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
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 api.ip2location.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.
*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)
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.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node njsmq in the MB1 DC from Slovenia, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node qtcl6 from Korea, with slight improvement to the decentralization of the subnet.
Motivation is offboarding the second rack of nodes in the mb1 DC after 48 months, in line with the forum post.
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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Replaces cordoned node njsmq with node qtcl6 on subnet cv73p.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard the MB1 DC 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.
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 topics and Synapse on most other 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 and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: 2 offline nodes replaced with unassigned nodes. Decentralisation metrics are slightly improved in terms of the diversity of countries in the subnet. One of the nodes being replaced is a DFINITY node (necessarily replaced by another DFINITY node).
There are some country discrepancies, but the locations are very close to each other. In the future I may add a degree of tolerance before considering highlighting as a warning.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
224.918 km
6586.338 km
16654.257 km
PROPOSED
224.918 km
6636.172 km (+0.8%)
16654.257 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
3
11
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
3
12 (+8.3%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
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.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes in subnet cv73p, appearing in the decentralization tool as “DOWN”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country 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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 4.60
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
3
2, US
2
11
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 = 4.80
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
4
2, CH
2
12
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.
The proposal replaces two offline nodes in Allentown (North America) and Zurich (Europe).
Decentralization stats have increase while no issues on the proposed nodes, datacenters.
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 2 dead Offline status node bivej from the AW1 DC in Pennsylvania and dead Offline status node lkrgq from the ZH2 DC in Zurich, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node wl27x from from same NP and same DC ZH2 and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ehorg from Canada, with slight improvement to 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.
The proposal replaces two dead nodes on subnet cv73p:
dead node bivejDashboard Status: Offline and dead node lkrgqDashboard Status: Offline
with nodes:
node wl27xDashboard Status: Awaiting and node ehorgDashboard Status: Awaiting
There is no impact in the overall decentralization across all features.
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.
