Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

G04-CG: Yes

Rationale

A concrete plausible configuration uses independently provisioned regional contact plans and multiple reachable gateways. Pinned ION documentation limits CGR to destinations in a locally shared region and provides destination-range exits for other regions. Each region computes its own routes; operators provision only their local plan and agreed boundary contacts, while exits select reachable neighboring gateways. Adding regions and gateways can therefore distribute routing and plan-management work without requiring one fixed-capacity global coordinator. This is a constructive configuration inference, not a conclusion drawn merely from the word decentralized.

Assessment method

Documentary plausibility of an explicit partitioned configuration; no scale experiment

Source context

ION regional routing and exit configuration; SABR management scope

Outstanding qualification

For the selected IPv4/TCP/TLS underlay, use multiple provisioned peer paths and locally maintained participant trust; this adds no obligatory single online coordinator. Global Internet dependencies remain separately accounted for. Conditions: coherent destination-range ownership, loop-free exits, reachable gateways, compatible bilateral contact schedules and local key/clock administration. Recover a failed boundary by local replanning or a preprovisioned alternative; no automatic convergence time or universal failure tolerance is promised. No new distributed planner is claimed. A chosen central mission planner can still be a bottleneck. Complete BPv7/SABR and convergence-layer integration remains unqualified. This does not close G01/G05, bound table size, or establish performance.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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