Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

G05-MT: No

Rationale

The retained No follows from the previously inspected selected standalone LoRa mesh's 32-bit NodeNum destination/key-selection namespace: even all 2^32 labels cannot identify 10 billion independently keyed, globally addressable endpoints. Disconnected meshes reusing labels do not satisfy the connected-network target. This necessary-condition obstruction survives the plausibility standard; no global benchmark is required. Added gateways or a collision-disambiguating hierarchy would change the selected profile.

Assessment method

Architectural plausibility assessment using documented evidence

Source context

Meshtastic NodeNum, destination fields, authoritative key stores and PKI send path

Outstanding qualification

No radio/load experiment was executed. This bound is specific to the selected single native routing namespace and ordinary independently keyed endpoints. Reopen if a concrete native hierarchy or collision-disambiguating destination/key-selection mechanism is added to the selected profile. Local disconnected deployments and application-managed key replacement do not establish that mechanism. Use the same Internet-shaped regional infrastructure, population, access workload and contemporary equipment envelope for every composition. Protocol-specific routing, discovery, caching and placement policies may differ on that infrastructure. Do not substitute a more favorable physical topology, omit regions, silently add links or assume an independently chosen cache-hit rate. Count additional equipment and its placement explicitly under the same resource envelope. An evidenced inability to serve this common setting can justify No; impossibility in every imaginable topology is not required. Missing evidence remains Pending.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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