Proposal 136760 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: Pending YES
TLDR: Replaces a node that needs redeploying, which has been declared by the Node Provider.
Thanks @Ernst. This is strange, do we know why the dashboard considers this node to be online (and not even degraded), despite the 100% failure rate? The node now has a degraded status, presumably because the dashboard need updating to take other factors into account.
As @aligatorr89 points out, the latest GuestOS deployment to this subnet appears to have been version 2f52f Proposal: 136634. f195b is the HostOS version deployed to the node (Proposal: 136712). The HostOS is responsible for booting the GuestOS.
Country Discrepancies (1)
Blockchain Development Labs node again…
| Node | Data Center | Claimed Country | According to ipinfo.io |
|---|---|---|---|
| d4ndk | 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 | 548.162 km | 8443.733 km | 16348.372 km |
| PROPOSED | 520.993 km (-5%) | 7883.371 km (-6.6%) | 16605.327 km (+1.6%) |
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 | 4 (-25%) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
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.
Geographic clustering increases with this proposal, which is a shame. Decentralisation in this respect could have been maintained or even improved based on some of the yellow markers above (other nodes which could have been swapped in). In any case, the IC Target Topology is met by this proposal.
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Add | uset5 | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Belgium | Antwerp (an1) | Datacenter United | DeNoDe | z4wll |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23jbm | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| d4ndk | UP | |
North America | Canada | Toronto 2 (to2) | Cyxtera | Blockchain Development Labs | 4lp6i |
| h3g2z | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 6 (zh6) | Green.ch | Sygnum Bank | ciprs |
| l7nbu | UP | |
Asia | Georgia | Tbilisi 1 (tb1) | Cloud9 | George Bassadone | yhfy4 |
| za7cm | UP | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 3 (hk3) | hkcolo | Power Meta Corporation | 4lbqo |
| h3gd6 | UP | |
Asia | India | Navi Mumbai 1 (nm1) | Rivram | Rivram Inc | mpmyf |
| rv6cf | UP | |
Asia | Japan | Tokyo (ty1) | Equinix | Starbase | cqjev |
| sqw45 | UP | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 1 (sl1) | Megazone Cloud | Neptune Partners | ukji3 |
| 5jbfj | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
| incp3 | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore (sg1) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | d4bin |
| sa67b | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
| agtd6 | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Phoenix (ph1) | CyrusOne | MI Servers | 5bnm2 |
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.