Subnet Management - jtdsg (Application)

[Lorimer]

Proposal 136578 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR: The proposal does not provide reference to sufficient evidence in order to verify/confirm its claim.

@Lorimer

This is a requirement that has been brought up as necessary time and again. I do not wish for proposals like this to continue being normalised. Nudging nodes in and out of subnets is an operation that carries significant security implications, and all the supporting evidence/justification for the swap should be provided in the proposal summary (it’s not something voters should be expected to have to hunt for).

Country Discrepancies (1)

@Lorimer

@alexu, can I ask where RIPE Atlas locates this node? I’ve not yet set myself up on the network, so don’t have any credits in order to check. I also noticed that my prior checks on an earlier discussion using ipinfo.io may have been inaccurate simply due to a stale local cache that I was using. I’ve just cleared it out and these are the results I’m getting for this node at the moment. Curious to see how that matches up with what you get.

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
dsnjt	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	478.364 km	8469.976 km	16654.257 km
PROPOSED	478.364 km	8341.853 km (-1.5%)	16654.257 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	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	s5waw	UP		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 4 (hk4)	hkntt	Web3game	dg7of
Add	l3m3j	UNASSIGNED		Asia	India	New Delhi 1 (nd1)	Marvelous Web3 DC	Marvelous Web3	ri4lg

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
4y5k6	UP		Oceania	Australia	Queensland 1 (sc1)	NEXTDC	Karel Frank	f3toa
rphlf	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels (br1)	Digital Realty	Allusion	mjeqs
dsnjt	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
gtc2a	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	vqe65
femah	UP		Asia	Georgia	Tbilisi 1 (tb1)	Cloud9	George Bassadone	yhfy4
nioyi	UP		Asia	Japan	Tokyo 3 (ty3)	Equinix	Starbase	a5glg
vt5q3	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 1 (sl1)	Megazone Cloud	Neptune Partners	ukji3
pym4f	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
tjg3r	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore (sg1)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	d4bin
i5kts	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana (lj1)	Posita.si	Fractal Labs AG	gl27f
ifjiy	UP		North America	United States of America (the)	Orlando (or1)	Datasite	Giant Leaf, LLC	2rqo7
4c63m	UP		Africa	South Africa	Cape Town 2 (ct2)	Teraco	Kontrapunt (Pty) Ltd	x7fjr

---

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.