Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F26-PN: Yes

Rationale

PRP architecture section 7.2 derives forwarding state from control-plane policy and route installation. The packet path validates applicable generation, packet protection and replay/sequence state before next-hop dispatch. Intermediate participants use authenticated local forwarding state rather than re-evaluating endpoint relationships. This supplies an authorization boundary before onward transmission and protects subsequent PRP links against traffic that fails that local boundary. It does not require intermediaries to learn the final identity.

Assessment method

Primary architectural and forwarding-policy analysis; no bandwidth benchmark required

Source context

PRP architecture section 7.2, pinned prp-spec e4f9d396b24ff2069708a39bfaf0a568f486efb2

Outstanding qualification

Architectural credit for the native PRP forwarding boundary, not a completed per-carrier implementation test. The ingress link and validation CPU have already been consumed. Local authority does not imply knowledge of endpoint policy; compromised or authorized neighbors, scheduling and quantitative policing remain separate. No universal bandwidth guarantee is claimed.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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