Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

G05-BL: Pending

Rationale

The existing G01 witness bounds prefix state using a provisioned binary hierarchy and exact interface/prefix filters. RFC 8966 Appendix C supports filtering; it does not supply a global deployment. The retained 31-router model tests converged forwarding only. Extending a balanced single-root hierarchy has a distinct traffic-concentration cost: with ten billion devices initiating 1000 distinct uniformly distributed remote contacts/day, approximately half of contacts cross the two root subtrees. That is about 57.87 million root-crossing contacts/second before responses or multi-packet transfers. This conditional average is neither an observed load nor a protocol-wide impossibility bound. Small routing tables alone therefore do not complete this global witness.

Assessment method

Documentary review and conditional cut-load calculation; no global deployment proof

Source context

RFC 8966 Appendix C; retained round139 witness; conditional traffic arithmetic

Outstanding qualification

G05-BL remains Pending. Bind the selected hierarchy to the common regional physical graph and account for root/cut capacity, path stretch, equipment placement and prefix allocation. A parallelized or multi-root construction must explain its forwarding/filter changes and resource costs on existing regional links. The uniform long-tail scenario is a sensitivity case, not an assumed universal workload. No new links, favorable replacement physical tree, or uncharged root cluster may be assumed. No daemon or global throughput benchmark was executed; G01-BL remains Yes.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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