This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the nl6hn 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:
The removed node is replaced with a node based in India. This certainly seems positive for decentralisation (many existing nodes are clustered in central Europe). I’ve verified that this node is currently unassigned.
DFINITY will submit an NNS proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, nl6hn, similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Voted to adopt proposal 134182, 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 is a nice proposal! It results in this subnet meeting the IC Target Topology (reducing the max number of nodes per country from 4 to 2 - see ‘Decentralisation Stats’ below for more detail).
Motivation:
replacing node 4jtgm-ywxcc-xh3o3-x2omx-tgmdm-gobca-agb3a-alvw4-dhmyn-khis6-xae to optimize network topology
replacing node uxbqo-4ugdi-djpsm-h6lcd-sdtcm-g7vve-4ajsi-lnv3n-ujnbi-2tgos-7qe to optimize network topology
2 US nodes replaced with nodes in Canada and South Korea.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
304.333 km
6843.946 km
16464.988 km
PROPOSED
304.333 km
6796.317 km (-0.7%)
16464.988 km
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
3
9
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
3
11 (+18.2%)
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 Boston and Atlanta 2, US with Awaiting nodes from Seoul 2, KR and Toronto, CA in order to optimize network topology.
Voted to adopt proposal 134182. The proposal replaces two nodes from subnet nl6hn:
Removed Nodes: 4jtgm, uxbqo.
Added Nodes: nebck and 5d6pj.
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 by reducing the number of nodes in the US from 4 to 2.
This proposal replaces node 5hpo7 which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
The stated purpose of this change is to remove nodes in the PL1 data centre as the node provider “is selling the PL1 DC after 48 months”. It’s not clear from the information linked whether the node provider is selling the entire data centre or just the node machines, but removal of the nodes for one or other of these purposes is consistent with this post from the node provider, the processes described in the same forum thread and the information in 87m Neuron’s node provider record in the IC dashboard. Additionally, the self-declaration documents provided match the provided hashes.
This proposal is part of a sequence of steps to remove cordoned nodes from subnets as the associated data centeres are being offboarded after 48 months of their respective DC contracts that are still private and were signed up before the Genesis. There is a great and detailed explanation of this changes in this forum post and the forum thread it is in. In the wiki there is a series of Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months that need to be followed in order for the nodes to continue earning rewards which starts by making a forum post in the following thread. As we can verify no one as come forward with nodes from the DCs in this proposals so I don’t see any issues with the removal of this nodes.
I’ve voted to reject proposal 134410. It makes claims that I see no clear way of verifying. This sort of verifiability issue was brought up months ago, where it was indicated that NPs would provide explicit confirmation of their alignment with specific proposals that are based on an understanding between the NP and the proposer. The proposal doesn’t link to such a post. Note that there are issues with that approach as well (given the ease with which such posts could be forged by the proposer), but this would at least be a start.
I’m currently thinking about starting a discussion and an associated motion proposal, about how to make this sort of thing more verifiable.
A new proposal with id 134487 has been submitted for this subnet.
Click here to open proposal details
Replace nodes in subnet nl6hn
Motivation:
replacing dead node nebck-zsvl3-ihtov-dgrji-q7xly-qhbwu-53rao-7ysgi-x7aof-wgvna-eae
replacing node ptxxp-fechw-m6taf-lrkaj-hwtas-rxq6p-o6tko-yho6t-cjfzc-zkgdd-sae to optimize network topology
Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:
1 additional node would result in: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.2575 to 2.3219
Based on the calculated potential impact, replacing 1 additional nodes to improve optimization
Note: the heuristic for node replacement relies not only on the Nakamoto coefficient but also on other factors that iteratively optimize network topology.
Due to this, Nakamoto coefficients may not directly increase in every node replacement proposal.
Code for comparing decentralization of two candidate subnet topologies is at: dre/rs/decentralization/src/nakamoto/mod.rs at 79066127f58c852eaf4adda11610e815a426878c · dfinity/dre · GitHub
This proposal replaces node nebck which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Offline”, along with an additional node in order to improve overall topology. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node nebck from Seoul2 Korea, and healthy Active status node ptxxp from Zurich4 Switzerland, in order to optimize network topology. This improves decentralization.
TLDR: Voted to adopt. Replaces a DOWN node with an UP node, and replaces another node to improve decentralisation according to recognised metrics. The claim made by the proposal is referenced below, followed by some independent analysis that is consistent with those claims.
replacing dead node nebck-zsvl3-ihtov-dgrji-q7xly-qhbwu-53rao-7ysgi-x7aof-wgvna-eae
replacing node ptxxp-fechw-m6taf-lrkaj-hwtas-rxq6p-o6tko-yho6t-cjfzc-zkgdd-sae to optimize network topology
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
304.333 km
7566.411 km
16759.085 km
PROPOSED
304.333 km
7596.787 km (+0.4%)
16759.085 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
4
12
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
12
13
13
13
13
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)
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)
CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical 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.
The proposal replaces two node on subnet nl6hn:
Removed nodes: dead node nebck, status Offline and node ptxxp, status Active.
Added nodes: node lz3ap, status Awaiting and node fwpkp, status Awaiting.
The active node ptxxp is being removed in order to improve decentralization coefficients in the subnet specifically the country metric reducing the number of nodes in CH from 2 to 1.
