Proposal 135542 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: NO
TLDR: The proposal claims there’s a need to remove an HSM-secured node, in order to redeploy without the legacy HSM approach. However there’s no forum post from the Node Provider to put this proposal into context. This is something which has been agreed as a requirement in the past for these sorts of proposals.
Hey @Sat, similar to the other proposal, is there a public announcement about this from the Node Provider that can be pointed to?
Country Discrepancies (2)
One of these is a very large discrepancy in terms of distance, which I’m surprised to see given than ipinfo.io uses a probe network for increased geolocation accuracy. However the node in question is not the subject of this proposal, so just something to revisit at some point I think.
| Node | Data Center | Claimed Country | According to ipinfo.io |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7r7kx | Toronto 2 | Canada | United States of America (the) |
| rhy7d | 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 | 7635.969 km | 16654.257 km |
| PROPOSED | 304.712 km | 7615.32 km (-0.3%) | 16616.248 km (-0.2%) |
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 | 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 |  |
||||||||
| Add | jiogo | UNASSIGNED | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Jacksonville (jv1) | Tierpoint | Rivonia Holdings LLC | stqij |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| onv2n | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| rhy7d | UP | |
Europe | Belgium | Brussels 2 (br2) | AtlasEdge | Allusion | oorkg |
| 7r7kx | UP | |
North America | Canada | Toronto 2 (to2) | Cyxtera | Blockchain Development Labs | 4lp6i |
| d2ffc | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 4 (zh4) | Nine.Ch | Tomahawk.vc | paxme |
| 4rpiz | UP | |
Europe | Germany | Frankfurt 2 (fr2) | Equinix | Virtual Hive Ltd | 3nu7r |
| ked4e | UP | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 1 (hk1) | Unicom | Wancloud limited | z6cfb |
| 2dzst | UP | |
Asia | India | Panvel 2 (pl2) | Yotta | Krishna Enterprises | 7rw6b |
| kegk5 | UP | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 1 (sl1) | Megazone Cloud | Neptune Partners | ukji3 |
| b3knf | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| 4xhpj | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
| wz42c | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore (sg1) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | d4bin |
| scjri | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
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.