Subnet Management - yinp6 (Application)

Proposal 134986 Review | LORIMER Known Neuron

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Decentralisation stats are unchanged and there is a clear public declaration for the cordoned node which is referred to in the proposal summary. 1 cordoned node replaced with another node belonging to the same NP at the same data centre.

As a side note - there is an IP address-related country discrepancy for this subnet (though unaffected by this proposal). Expand Country Discrepancies section below for more info.

Country Discrepancies (1)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to api.ip2location.io According to ip-api.com According to domain WHOIS lookup
d46vh Seoul 3 Korea (the Republic of) Belgium China China

Geolocation for the d46vh node’s IP address places it in Belgium according to one provider, and in China according to two others. Note that there’s already another node in this subnet that’s located in Belgium (same location). This seems very odd to me. @SvenF are you able to shine a light on what’s happening here? It seems odd that by shear chance the IP address (according to one geolocation provider) puts this node at the same location as another node in this subnet, which is indeed expected to be in belgium (different NP and DC though). @MalithHatananchchige, you’re also knowledgeable with this sort of thing. Do you have any thoughts?

Decentralisation Stats

Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 305.949 km 6629.866 km 16014.122 km
PROPOSED 305.949 km 6629.866 km 16014.122 km

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 4 13 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 4 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 6 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 6 1 1 1 1 1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136

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 api.ip2location.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 mp3w3 UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Maribor (mb1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG 3xiew
Add jthcr UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Maribor (mb1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG 3xiew
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
fxdqu UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels (br1) Digital Realty Allusion mjeqs
2sjsi UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
rp2ka UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung s7dud
kvj4i UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
r5zha UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
25a7h UP :bar_chart: Asia India Navi Mumbai 1 (nm1) Rivram Rivram Inc mpmyf
d46vh UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 3 (kr1) KT Pindar Technology Limited iubpe
mswad UP :bar_chart: Europe Poland Warszawa 2 (wa2) Central Tower DC Bohatyrov Volodymyr ygsal
kxmey UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
k6zrw UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
6pt6z UP :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Houston (hu1) TRG 43rd Big Idea Films fthz3
ulcre UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 2 (jb2) Africa Data Centres Karel Frank bm2lc

*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.

2 Likes