Subnet Management - pjljw (Application)

Proposal 135996 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: The proposal ‘motivation’ claim below can be verified here, but running a text search on 4fedi-eu6ue-nd7ts-vnof5-hzg66-hgzl7-liy5n-3otyp-h7ipw-owycg-uae, showing that all nodes are currently allocated to subnets. This proposal removes one such node from this subnet.

We can see that the node provider for the replacement node (g2ax6-jrkmb-3zuh3-jibtb-q5xoq-njrgo-5utbc-j2o7g-zfq2w-yyhky-dqe) only has 3 of their 10 nodes assigned to subnets. This proposal increases that number to 4, balancing node provider allocation across subnets - making the IC Target Topology generally easier to achieve (less likely to get stuck in local optima).

Motivation: The node operator 4lbqo (under NP 4fedi) has 5 nodes in total and currently has all nodes assigned to subnets. We propose to remove one of the operator’s nodes from subnet pjljw to allow optimization of the overall network topology. The removal of the node from the subnet does not worsen subnet decentralization, and may allow the node to be assigned to subnet where it would improve decentralization.

Country Discrepancies (2)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
vdvh4 Brussels Belgium France
xbcli 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 305.949 km 8232.538 km 16616.573 km
PROPOSED 305.949 km 8232.555 km 16616.573 km

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 5 13 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 5 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 5 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 5 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 5ei6o UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 3 (hk3) hkcolo Power Meta Corporation 4lbqo
Add jemyk UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
yjbaw UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
vdvh4 UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels (br1) Digital Realty Allusion mjeqs
xbcli UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
pzhdx UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung db7fe
dd3ye UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
5fpzb UP :bar_chart: Asia India New Delhi 1 (nd1) Marvelous Web3 DC Marvelous Web3 ri4lg
fqczw UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 3 (kr1) KT Pindar Technology Limited iubpe
tkoxk UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
vtbf4 UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore 2 (sg2) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital qffmn
c6on3 UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana (lj1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG gl27f
ucznq UP :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v
yszpk UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 2 (jb2) Africa Data Centres Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd 3bohy


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.

1 Like