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). Iāve 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 āActiveā on the IC dashboard. The proposed change improves decentralisation with respect to country and brings the target topology parameters to within the requirements.
TLDR: Iām 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 āDecentralisation Statsā 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) ā
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 ā
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.) ā
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 āStatus: Activeā. 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 āis selling the PL1 DC after 48 monthsā. Itās 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 Neuronās 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 donāt see any issues with the removal of this nodes.
Iāve 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 doesnāt 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.
Iām currently thinking about starting a discussion and an associated motion proposal, about how to make this sort of thing more verifiable.
