Light jet pilot reported possible pilot deviation by ATC due to previous ATC instruction to descend below minimum vectoring altitude.

Narrative

I was flying to Aspen from ZZZ1 via ZZZ2; which I do fairly frequently for personal travel. Denver Traffic Management went into effect and I was routed off my filed flight plan on a SKI route into Aspen (amended route PUB RODDY KANON HAREI DBL). I was instructed by Denver Center to descend to FL250; and then cross HAREI at 15;000. I read back the clearance and then descended from FL280 to FL250. At an appropriate distance from HAREI; I informed the Denver Center controller I was commencing my descent out of FL250 and was acknowledged by the controller. During the descent I was asked about flight conditions (pop-eye; smooth) and later told to switch over to Aspen Approach. Upon contacting Aspen I was told to immediately climb to 16;000ft. At this point; night time had occurred; the minimum vectoring altitude was above the ceiling; instrument approaches are not authorized at night for Aspen; and we diverted to ZZZ3 without further incident. I was instructed to call Aspen Tower about a possible pilot deviation. This surrounded my descent below the minimum vectoring altitude in that sector of 15;500; as instructed by the Denver Center controller and read back by myself without any correction from the controller until switched to Aspen Approach. I had a fabulous conversation with Aspen Tower the next day to better understand the issue and I cannot say enough about their professionalism and helpful responses. I do not know at this time for certain if I misunderstood the Denver Controller (and my readback was not corrected) or if the Denver Center Controller erroneously assigned me to 15;000 feet. In any event; no one has reached back out to me; and I have no qualms with anyone about the occurrence. With resources now being proposed to improve the ATC system; I want to point out that as a pilot; when I am on an established airway; I know from my charts the Minimum enroute altitude and minimum obstruction clearance altitude to ensure at least 2000' clearance from Obstructions in mountainous terrain. However; when routed off airways by controllers I no longer have any idea what minimum safe altitudes are; and no cue to query an assignment that might pose danger. The only way I even know the minimum vectoring altitude for the sector I have been routed into is if the controller tells me; or I specifically ask. It may not be possible to do anything about this; but new technology may be able to detect / avoid this problem in the future before it occurs. Minimum area altitudes published on enroute IFR charts are frequently above MEAs on airways within the space; so they are not helpful to the pilot except in the event of electrical / navigational failures to reach a safe altitude. Again; once directed off established airways to accommodate traffic management; or for any other reason; the pilot no longer has any method of knowing minimum altitudes including minimum vectoring altitudes and responding appropriately if assigned a lower; unsafe altitude erroneously; especially in a higher threat environment such as mountainous terrain. A method; system; or technology to provide more timely guidance to both the controller and the pilot may prove useful. I am grateful for the rapid recognition and corrective action by the Aspen Controller at the time of my frequency change and upon entering the Aspen sector airspace.