This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the pae4o 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:
DFINITY will submit a proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, pae4o , similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
This proposal replaces node q2gfr 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 134411. 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.
Voted to reject proposal 134573 as this is part of a large batch of non-critical proposals timed such that the voting period clashes with national holidays, thereby allowing insufficient time for an appropriately detailed review to take place.
Rejected proposal 134573. There’s no time to review this and the 18 other proposals in the same batch properly over Xmas eve, Xmas and Boxing Day. This is a non-critical proposal.
Replaces cordoned nodes gdj2z and w2l33 with nodes q6bkk and ieaic on subnet pae4o.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard TY2 and AN1 DCs consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post and forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
The proposal replaces two cordoned nodes, one healthy Active status node gdj2z from the AN1 Data Center in Belgium, and cordoned healthy Active status node w2l33 from the TY2 Data Center in Tokyo, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node q6bkk from Germany and with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ieaic from Toronto, without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info, also it can be checked here.
TLDR: Some decentralisation stats are improved, some worsened. The key ones are unchanged. There is a clear public declaration for each cordoned node which is referred to in the proposal summary.
2 cordoned nodes replaced with a nodes in India and Romania.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
7994.361 km
16672.927 km
PROPOSED
0 km
7725.493 km (-3.4%)
16672.927 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
5
11
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5
12 (+8.3%)
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
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)
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.
This proposal replaces nodes kte5g and wj4ul for the respective stated reasons “offboarding the second rack of nodes in the GE1 DC after 48 months” and “offboarding SG3 DC after 48 months”. Node kte5g is listed to be handed over in this post. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces 2 cordoned healthy Active status node kte5g from Geneva and healthy Active status node wj4ul from Singapore, with
unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 3pjo5 from Panvel India and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ja4ju from Romania. This improves the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Replaces cordoned nodes kte5g and wj4ul with nodes 3pjo5 and ja4ju on subnet pae4o.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard the GE1 and SG3 DCs consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post and forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
The GE1 node being removed was also stated here.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
