Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

C01-IP: Yes

Rationale

A bounded native IPv4 configuration can keep one destination address reachable after its old final attachment fails. Assign the private /32 to a persistent logical host interface, provision two physical access paths and host routes to that same /32, and use weak-host receive semantics. When the old access is lost, the routing administrator selects the surviving path; datagrams still carry the original destination address and arrive through the other physical interface.

Assessment method

Primary documentation and pinned source review; no runtime experiment

Source context

RFC 1122 weak-host semantics, configured IPv4 routes and Babel local-route origination

Outstanding qualification

This is an infrastructure-administered, preprovisioned witness, not ordinary subscriber address portability. Both paths must deliver to the same host, whose address remains assigned; routers need authorized host routes and a usable return path. The selected private deployment permits these local routes. No BGP capability is assigned to an unprivileged endpoint, and no global provider-independent /32 advertisement is assumed. Route replacement can be administrative; automatic failure detection, seamless sessions and a recovery deadline are not credited. Weak-host behavior is permitted rather than required by RFC 1122 and is documented by Linux; strong-host or filtering configurations can reject the alternate ingress. This is final-attachment recovery, not merely BGP transit repair. No Mobile IP, tunnel, DNS or application redirection. No runtime experiment; F23 is unchanged.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.