Proposal 136579 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: NO
TLDR: This proposal suggests swapping a healthy node out of the subnet because it’s considered ‘cordoned’, but no evidence is provided for voters to follow up on this claim (to gain confidence about its validity, e.g. a link to public discussion with the node provider confirming their intentions).
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).
Related context:
Country Discrepancies (1)
@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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7r7kx | 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 | 304.712 km | 7613.546 km | 16616.248 km |
| PROPOSED | 304.712 km | 7234.188 km (-5%) | 16616.248 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 | 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 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 | dur57 | UNASSIGNED | |
Asia | Georgia | Tbilisi 1 (tb1) | Cloud9 | George Bassadone | yhfy4 |
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 |
| 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 |
| jiogo | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Jacksonville (jv1) | Tierpoint | Rivonia Holdings LLC | stqij |
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.