ADR 0137: a machine says which networks it routes, and issue 137 is how that was found

04-ISSUES/137-converging-a-machine-cut-off-its-own-guests/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+status: resolved
+opened: 2026-09-28
+located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue]
+fixed-by: mesh-controller — a machine says which networks it routes and the derived filter forwards them, their guests keeping address and name service ([ADR 0137](../../02-DECISIONS/0137-a-machine-says-which-networks-it-routes.md)).
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 137 — Converging a machine cut off its own guests, and nothing said so
+
+## What was observed
+
+A workstation was flipped from adopted to converged, so the mesh's derived filter replaced what was
+there. The flip reported success, the machine reported that it had applied its declaration, and every
+surface of the mesh read green.
+
+A container on one of that machine's networks could no longer reach anything:
+
+```
+192.168.64.2/20
+OUTBOUND BLOCKED
+```
+
+Five of the machine's container networks were affected, and every network its test beds create. The
+reason is in the filter's forward chain, which denies by default and then allows two ranges:
+
+```
+ip saddr 172.16.0.0/12 accept   # the container runtime's bridge networks
+ip saddr 192.168.128.0/17 accept # the networks its compose files are given
+```
+
+Those two are constants in the controller. The machine's guests were allocated from neither: its
+compose networks from other parts of `192.168/16`, and each test bed a fresh `10.x/24`. So the rules
+were correct for a machine whose runtime was left at its defaults, and a guess on this one.
+
+Two further things were closed by the same flip, and for the same reason nobody saw them: a guest asks
+its host for an address over DHCP and for names over DNS, both of which arrive at the input chain,
+where no module had declared them.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**The preview could not have warned.** It lists what the machine reported as *listening*, and says so
+honestly: it ends with a line that traffic the machine routes is "not previewed". What it did not say
+is that routing was about to be denied by default, or which ranges would survive. An operator reading
+a 350-line preview approves what it shows.
+
+**It is the second time today that a constant stood in for something the mesh cannot know.** The
+intrusion-prevention module named a firewall front-end two machines do not have
+([issue 136](../136-a-module-may-name-a-program-the-machine-does-not-have/00-report.md)), and the
+filter names the address ranges one runtime happens to use. Both were true where they were written and
+silently false elsewhere.
+
+**And the code already knew.** The comment above those two lines says a machine configured otherwise
+"needs this to say so — which is a thing the mesh cannot derive and a reason this list is named here
+rather than computed". The gap was documented at the point where it was introduced, and the way to say
+it was never built. A comment naming a missing mechanism is a rule that is not enforced.
+
+## What was done
+
+A machine says which networks it routes; the filter forwards them and admits their guests' address and
+name service. Added to the runtime's defaults rather than replacing them, so a machine that names one
+range keeps the others. Node-level, because the machine routes them and the module that loads the
+filter may be replaced. The converge preview now says what a machine routes, and what it will keep
+forwarding if it says nothing.
+
+## What is still true
+
+**The flip is still the moment a machine's unmanaged services close.** That is what converging means
+and the preview names each one. This issue is not about the ports that were meant to close; it is about
+the ones nothing could name.
+
+**Egress is still not previewed per network.** The preview says which ranges will be forwarded, not
+which of the machine's guests sit inside them. Deriving that would need the machine to report its
+bridges, and a bed's bridge does not exist until the bed runs.