Ordering needed no change for the third time running — resources apply
in the order declared and nothing sorts them — and is now asserted,
because sorting them for any sensible reason would have passed every
other test.
Separates ordering from readiness, which the task had run together: a
container started is not a container ready. Nothing waits, and what
needs something usable retries. That is deliberate and more robust than
start ordering, since a dependency can restart long after apply.
The network was the first thing in Phase 1 that genuinely needed
building, and the first that needed a decision: 0029 records why a shape
rather than an action, and the vocabulary is nine.
A session as a licence consumer needed no change either: the two
sessions are two modules, so the existing (node, module) binding already
names them apart. 14-model-access.md's "a step toward it and not it" is
true of a worker and not of a session, and the difference is that there
is one session per node rather than many per machine.
Records what stays open: the worker half of that gap is real and
unaffected, and belongs with 0003, which is unbuilt.
Two tasks in a row that were already possible. Both were written from
the design rather than from the code — the review's own finding arriving
in the plan it produced. The remaining Phase 1 items should be checked
against the code before being started rather than after.
An object-store provision, proven against a real store with seven
assertions.
The finding is worth more than the task: the control plane
special-cases nothing. provides, requires, contributes and grants are
name-agnostic, so asking for a bucket needed no change to the mesh at
all. What was missing was a provider and the last step on the machine —
"add an object-store provision" was never mesh work, and the breakdown
now says so rather than leaving the next person to rediscover it.
Named s3-bucket by 0027: the coupling is to the API, not the product,
because swapping one store for another does not break a consumer. A
database is the other case and names its engine.
Records the assertion a database does not need, because it is the one
that will be forgotten when somebody writes the next provider: one store
holds every bucket behind one endpoint, so isolation is a policy rather
than a property, and a policy granting everything passes every test that
only checks a consumer can reach its own bucket.
**0024 accepted.** Model access was decided, built, and proven in the
lab, and two design documents rest on it; only the status had never
moved. The gate is green again.
**The work breakdown rewritten.** It planned a decomposition of the
existing system in place — extract contexts, declared features, shrink
the shared library. That is not the work. A replacement is being built
beside it, and only the old Phase 0 survived contact with reality, so
the one document meant to say what happens next was describing a system
being retired.
Now ordered by what "modules move across one at a time until the old
registry is off" actually requires:
- Phase 0 is marked done against the twenty-two lab assertions, **and
carries its own limitation**: every module exercised was written to
test the mechanism, so the vocabulary was shaped by its own fixtures.
- Phase 1 is the vocabulary gaps found by asking what real modules
need — an object-store provision, a session as a licence consumer, a
network shape with ordering, public certificate issuance.
- Phase 2 is one module, then a week of running it, because the point of
going first is to find what Phase 1 missed.
- Phase 3 picks modules that each prove something the first did not; the
mail system is last because it is the one that may send work back into
the declaration language.
- Phase 4 is switching the registry off, named as a phase so it is not
mistaken for the goal.
Keeps the rules of engagement unchanged — they were about how work is
done, not what it is — with one addition: stop and ask before anything
that touches a machine outside the lab.
Adds a section on keeping the list true, since the document it replaces
was wrong for weeks and nothing said so. A claim here is counted, not
reasoned, and a phase is done when the lab says so.
First pass of a design review, done by reading documents against code
and against a raised mesh rather than against each other. Every error
below was invisible to a proofread.
**Statuses were stale, and nothing checked them.** Ten to-be documents
said `designed` while naming working, lab-proven code — several with a
*What was built* or *Raised, and observed* section. Added a
`status-vs-code` check: naming a file is a claim that the file
implements this, so a document that points at one has stopped being
merely designed. It failed on all ten before it passed, per the rule
this folder sets for its own checks.
**The bundle carries three images, not two.** 07 reasoned about which
substrate services go in and overlooked that the control plane is in
there too — it is what the substrate exists to start, and there is
nothing to fetch it with yet. Counted, not deduced.
**The bootstrap uses four shapes, not six.** It listed `file` and
`directory`, which substrate-first-node.lock never asks for. The claim
that mattered — nothing is blocked on the host — was true either way,
which is why the wrong count survived.
**The eight capabilities were documented nowhere.** Implemented in
internal/profile/detectors.go and enumerated in no document, including
the one about the host that detects them. A vocabulary modules write
against, readable only by reading the code. Now written down, with the
seat/graphical-session distinction that is wrong in both directions if
collapsed.
**MinIO swept out of the to-be layer** per 0028.
The gate now fails on one thing left deliberately: ADR 0024 is
`proposed` while two documents rest on it and the feature it decides is
built and lab-proven. Accepting a decision is not mine to do.
**0027 — provisions.** A module written against PostgreSQL could be
matched to a provider of SQL Server, resolve as satisfied, and fail on
its first query. The name said the role, so nothing distinguished
engines. Refusing on ambiguity could not help: with one provider of
each name nothing is ambiguous. Enforced at parse rather than
documented, because the old naming was the documentation.
**0028 — the substrate.** 0006 admits an object store on the grounds
that it cannot grant itself a bucket. That answers the second half of
the test and assumes the first: the control plane does not need one.
Verified — no S3 client in mesh-control, and internal/builder/registry.go
records the deliberate choice to put artifacts in the OCI registry as
content-addressed blobs. The row was inherited from the system being
replaced, where an object store distributed module tarballs, and was
never re-tested against the definition above it.
So an object store is an ordinary module, and a mesh with nothing
needing one runs none. Migrating it is module work, not substrate work.
0028 also states what 0006 left unsaid: a substrate service and a
module of the same product are different instances. The substrate is
raised from the bundle before any mesh exists, so it is not in the
module graph — a workload depending on it would depend on something the
graph cannot see, cannot rotate a credential for, and cannot move, and
would put workload data in the store the control plane keeps its own
state in.
Both records were found by reading code against design rather than
design against itself, which is the review that should have happened
sooner.
Answers the question 15 raised: a board showing many sessions leaves
one-per-node untouched, because each is still one conversation. Only
concurrent conversations with the same session would touch 0004.
Records soulstream and herdr as the prior art to draw from, and marks
it explicitly off the provisioning path so it stays a note rather than
becoming the work.
Settles the question 15 left open: the mesh session holds its own
memory in the mesh root, rather than assembling a view over the node
sessions. Memory follows the rule the rest of the design already uses —
the context root is the whole of what makes one session a different
agent, and memory is part of what makes it that agent.
The control-plane node is what makes this load-bearing rather than
tidy. Two sessions share that machine; if memory belonged to the
machine instead of the root they would share it too, and the mesh's
recollection would be indistinguishable from that node's own — the
collision 0026 exists to avoid, arriving through the back door.
Also corrects an error made writing it up: memory is NOT declared
state. The engram and tools are — the mesh says what they are and the
host writes them (0011). Memory is written by the session itself and
declared by nobody, so a mechanism that regenerates the root wholesale
would erase it on the next heartbeat, silently, while reporting
success. The root is not uniformly managed and which parts are has to
be explicit.
A session for the mesh itself, addressed as the mesh, differing from a
node's in exactly three things: the context it starts in, its engram,
and its licence binding. Not a new kind of agent — the same mechanism
pointed at a different root. Two implementations of one mechanism drift,
and the vocabulary collision 0001 exists to undo began exactly that way.
It runs on the control-plane node, and the reasoning is easy to get
backwards: not "the important agent on the important machine", but that
this node is already the one place excepted from "compromise of a node
is compromise of that node". Placed anywhere else it would create a
second such place.
It is an addition to per-node messaging and never a replacement. 0001
holds that losing the control plane costs change, not operation — and a
mesh whose only conversational surface lived there would lose the
ability to ask anything while every machine kept running perfectly.
Writing it up exposed that the node session's setup was never designed
at all. 0004 gives behaviour and stops: nothing said how a session
starts, where its context lives, or how a broker message becomes a
prompt. That gap was invisible until something had to be built *like* a
node session. 15-the-agent-session.md covers both as one mechanism.
It also makes "a consumer that is not a machine" undeferrable. The
control-plane node now hosts two sessions that must hold different
licences, and a per-machine binding cannot express that at all. Noted in
14-model-access.md against the gap it was already recorded as.
Also completes the to-be index, which stopped at 10 and omitted four
documents. Pre-existing broken ADR references in the older rows are left
alone rather than guessed at.
Decides the question 006 narrowed to. An agent reads this repository
directly and the search consults it, so these documents surface beside
ordinary results instead of only when somebody already suspects they
exist.
A scheduled sync into the mesh's memory was the option that works with
what exists today, and lost on the ground this repository can least
afford: it makes a second copy, and the copy that is searched quietly
stops matching the copy that is edited. A design record that has
silently diverged from the reasoning it claims to carry is worse than
one that cannot be found — the first misleads, the second merely fails.
Amends what 0019 promised rather than satisfying it: these documents
will not be indexed, they will be read. The commitment that survives is
the one that mattered — that a searcher finds them without already
suspecting they exist.
Gated on an agent that does not exist yet, so 006 stays open on the
build with a decided shape. What closes it is a check that fails today
by design: search the mesh's memory for a phrase that appears only in a
design document here, and require it back.
**004 — certificate issuance.** The resolver declared no authority at
all, so the client fell to its built-in production default: there was no
setting set wrongly, there was no setting. It is now a node property
defaulting to staging, which answers the first open question. Staging by
default rather than production-with-an-override, because the alternative
leaves the safe path depending on remembering to opt out of it — 005's
lesson, in a second place. The rollout is ordered and the order is the
dangerous part; recorded, not performed.
**008 — node rescue.** Read back from running nodes as the report asked,
and one of its own claims was wrong in a way that matters: the health
timer does exist and does fire. It simply never calls the rescue script.
A trigger that exists and does not do what the script claims survives a
halfway check, which makes it worse than the absence the report
described. Resolved by making the documentation true, not by
implementing rescue — the replacement host already supervises recovery,
and wiring unattended restart into the fleet being retired is a
deliberate decision rather than a tidy-up. Two "self-healing" claims
narrowed to what they actually do.
**006 — deliberately not closed.** Re-checked today: the indexing still
does not exist. What is gone is the reason it was an issue — the claim
is no longer load-bearing, because the README names the gap and the
decision's reasoning never invoked indexing. A signpost now points here
from the knowledge base, and was measured rather than assumed: it is
reachable, it is not surfacing. Closing it while the indexing does not
exist would be this repository's own named failure, one folder from
where it names it.
Retired in favour of the lab rather than repaired — that answers the
first open question. The second finding is the one that generalises:
"nothing runs it, and nothing reports that nothing runs it" is not a
fact about that harness, it is a fact about any suite too expensive to
run on every push. The replacement inherited the fault it was replacing.
Records the three rules that now hold, and what the fix taught twice:
the remedy rebuilt the symptom inside itself, and the code that counts
results passed every test while reading nothing.
A service is reached at <service>.<node>.internal, so what resolves is anything
under a node's name. The mesh writes the data and runs no daemon; two roles,
two claims, because systemd-resolved cannot serve a wildcard at all.
Both prohibitions were found by a machine rather than by reasoning: an address
systemd already held, and reading resolv.conf for upstreams that now point at
itself.
Twice in one file, a statement about a machine that read as reasoned and was
wrong — and the module's unit tests all passed while the daemon could not
start. That is what a unit test is: it confirms the assertion was made, never
that it is true of any machine.
003 in prose rather than in a manifest key.
The field was called needs, beside secrets, and both were name-to-path holding
something secret. What separates them is whose, not how secret — so that is
what the name says now.
012 named its own closing condition — a scenario with four images coming up —
and the scenario now stocks seven and has raised cleanly many times at the
memory the wrong diagnosis had raised.
001 is answered by the host reading the package database back after installing.
002 was NOT answered and was present here too, so it is a fix rather than a
note: a stale index is now named instead of reported as a failed install.
The connectivity design still said a hub cannot be filtered — a gap recorded in
the morning and closed in the afternoon, left standing as though it were
current. Worse than a stale date: it would send somebody away from something
that works.
`restart-on` was described nowhere, including the part added today that lets a
service reflect a file another module put on the machine. A rule the host
enforces and no document mentions is a rule nobody can rely on.
And nine of fifteen design documents claimed an `updated:` older than their last
change, some by a week. That field is what cross-cutting views are generated
from, so it is not decoration.
A resolver takes over /etc/resolv.conf, which is a singular resource — ADR 0009
lists it in the table beside the seat and pid 1. So choosing between resolved,
dnsmasq and unbound is assigning a module, per machine, and the mesh refuses
two rather than letting them fight over the file.
Recorded because it was treated as an open question two days after being
decided, which is the argument for that table being a table.
Found by a container failing to resolve a name every machine could: a container
gets its own hosts file holding only its own hostname, and on the machine it
always worked, which is what made it easy to miss.
Declared containers are given the names. A container somebody starts by hand is
not the mesh's to configure — which is a second, different reason to want a
resolver, recorded beside the first rather than folded into it.
Asked whether a machine that drops off needs re-adopting: it does not, nothing
expires, and the only thing that forces re-enrolment is losing its own key.
The gap was the twenty or thirty seconds after a resume in which a node
believes it is in a mesh it has left — recovering on its own, which made it a
quality gap rather than a fault, and still a machine waiting to be told
something it already knew.
It meant failed-or-refused, so the question this record says must not be lost
was answerable only for the machines that broke. Out of date, never told, and
not worked out are kept apart: the remedy is the same push and they read
differently to whoever is looking.
Their subject matter has been built and proven for days and their frontmatter
still said code: [] — which is what the cross-cutting view is generated from,
so it was claiming nothing existed for the substrate, the node lifecycle and
delivery.
One reading answered three ways, holding nothing and touching no context's
store — which is the constraint the whole document is about, and the thing the
board being replaced gets wrong.
Rotation and the provisioner contract; model access as a provision answered by
a record, with ADR 0024's other two gaps left as gaps; exposure, which closes
the open question about revoking a route; and the delivery loop, which closes
the gap ADR 0010 left when it replaced a pipeline with a comparison.
The broker's fingerprint travels with its credential, and the machine's
filesystem does not travel at all — it runs in a container, which is the
arrangement working rather than a limitation to route around.
Found by the firewall: every packet filtered as declared, and the machine
reported as not doing what it was told, because the unit that loaded the rules
had finished. Stated as a gap rather than worked around silently.
Otherwise it succeeds into a state its verify rejects, and the host's report is
accurate and names nothing. Recorded where the vocabulary is described, because
it is a rule about writing an action rather than about one action.
A hub needs its overlay port open and a node that is not a hub does not, and
they are the same module — so listens, a static manifest field, cannot express
it while the overlay module's resources are computed per node. Written down
rather than left as an oversight for whoever first puts a firewall on a hub.
Issue 014: the node's serving key was stored in the host's own encoding, so
every check that reads the file passed and no server could start. Same shape as
013 — two halves of one mechanism designed separately, each correct about its
own half. Where a file exists so a third party can read it, the format is the
interface.
Issue 003 is answered in both halves: manifests are parsed strictly, and a
module says what it listens on and from where rather than carrying a key
nothing reads. The design records what was built and how each part is checked.
Issue 013 is new, found by reading while writing the first module that has
both a computed file and a service that needs it. The file arrived second.
It failed, then the next reconcile fixed it, which is why nothing caught it.
Two things changed at once: a fourth image in the scenario, and scenario
machines raised from 1 GiB to 2 GiB. The bootstrap then failed every
time, and the image was blamed.
Removing the image did not fix it. Removing the memory increase did —
nine assertions pass again on three images with the machines back at
1 GiB. Three machines at 2 GiB on a host doing other work contend enough
that the store container does not come up at all.
The ordinary lesson, and it still caught me: two changes together, the
failure attributed to the plausible one, and an issue written recording
the wrong cause. What found it was reverting to the exact last-known-good
state rather than reverting the suspicious change.
What remains untested is whether a fourth image alone is fine. Probably.
Nothing has measured it, and the honest state of this issue is that what
it was opened about was never demonstrated.
substrate
Adding a fourth image to the two-machine scenario makes the bootstrap
fail every time, with the store's readiness check producing no output at
all — which says the container was not running rather than that the
database was slow. Three images pass nine assertions; four never get past
the store.
More memory did not change it, so memory is not the cause; the change is
kept because the reasoning holds on its own. Disk is the most likely
explanation and nothing has measured it.
It blocks proving the mesh runs its own artifact store, since the
registry module needs a registry image to mirror. The module is written
and accepted; what is unproven is a machine assigned it serving another.
The first fix continued past every failure, and the next lab run failed
at the bootstrap: the store did not answer in three minutes and then said
"the database system is shutting down". Carrying on past the readiness
gate had started the broker and the control plane against a machine that
was not ready, and on a small machine that is how a database still
initialising has its memory taken away.
An action is the only shape whose purpose is to make something true
BEFORE the next thing needs it, which is why it is the only one with a
verify. So a failed action stops what follows and nothing else does —
which fixes both this and the hostage problem the issue was opened for.
Found in the lab. A machine with one impossible module applied nothing at
all on every later push, and the mesh said "failed" without saying the
rest was never attempted.
Recorded with the evidence, including that the behaviour's test cited a
record which does not decide it: ADR 0010 argues about pipelines against
reconcilers and says nothing about whether one resource failing should
stop the next being attempted.
Fixed in mesh-host: everything is attempted, every failure reported.
Three additions, all written by trying to write a real database module
and finding out what could not be said.
A module may mirror an image it did not write. Naming an upstream
reference directly needs every machine to reach a public registry and
pins to a tag somebody else can move.
A module may need a secret of its own — a superuser password is not FOR
anybody, so the mechanism that hands credentials to consumers cannot
express it. Per node, so three machines have three passwords.
And the provisioner watches, which is what lets it be a module rather
than a binary somebody places. It polls rather than watching the
filesystem, because the host writes atomically and a watch on a replaced
path silently stops working.
One assignment now gets a working database provider: two directories, two
pinned containers, a sealed password and the grants manifest.
A page nobody had thought to ask for turns out to be the one a person
opens first: what is not doing what it was told. Recorded with the order
that matters — broken, then quiet, then out of date — because a page
leading with the last would bury the first.
And refused stays distinct from failed all the way to the page. They are
fixed in different places, so one word for both sends half its readers to
the wrong one.
Two additions to the module-repository design, both from building it.
A build machine has its own credential and it is not a node's: read the
build queue, write the mesh exchange, nothing else. A node's queue
carries that node's declarations.
The answer goes through the exchange and never the default one, because
permission there is per exchange rather than per queue — anything allowed
to use it can publish into any node's queue. The price is that every
asker sees every result and filters by correlation, which is cheap
against a builder never needing that permission.
And every result is kept, failures included, because one that leaves no
trace is indistinguishable from a build nobody asked for. That is what a
builds view reads; the board page is corrected to say so.
A build is work, not state, and that is why it does not travel as a
declaration: as one it would either rebuild on every reconcile or carry
"and I already did this", which is state about an event rather than about
a machine. So it has its own queue and the answer comes back correlated.
Three properties recorded because they are decisions: acknowledge only
once the answer is away, one build at a time, and a failure is a result
rather than silence.
And the board page is corrected. A build result today is answered to
whoever asked and kept nowhere, so a builds view has nothing to read. A
record of past builds is the missing piece, not the builder.
Designed with no reference to what came before, which was asked for. The
system this replaces has features — several deployable units inside one
module — and they are deliberately absent.
That closes something ADR 0001 has been carrying as an open prerequisite.
It lists "named features with per-node opt-in" as required, or "every
independently deployable unit becomes a module again and the count
returns". The premise was right and the remedy already exists in another
form: several modules, assignment per node, and a module with
requirements and no files of its own. `networking` is exactly that. The
count does not return because what made it return — a module is
expensive, so put several things in one — is gone. A module here is a
manifest and usually nothing else.
The manifest in a repository names artifacts; the manifest the mesh holds
names digests. Two documents, because a digest is not knowable until
something is built and a repository carrying one is wrong the moment
anybody edits anything.
The builder runs on a node. Building needs a container runtime and a
working tree, and what the control plane may send a machine is bounded by
the declaration language. A control plane holding a container socket
would be the one component that can do anything anywhere.
And the host's vocabulary grew from six shapes to eight — user and
archive — with the reasoning for each and for the refusals that came with
them. The count is asserted by a test precisely because every addition
widens what a compromised control plane can express.
Read from the board that exists. Eight sections; four are about work and
workers and are held back with that domain. The other four are the mesh
itself, and everything behind the main one already exists here — it is a
reader, not a second source of truth.
The constraint is the point of writing this down now. The existing board
is one service that reads every context's database, because that is the
shortest path to a page showing all of them at once. That is ADR 0008
violated by the one component with a reason to violate it, and the cost
is the same one the shared library has: a boundary nothing may cross is a
boundary that can move, and one thing crossing it is enough to freeze it.
So a board reads through interfaces and stores nothing. If a question is
slow, the answer belongs in the context that owns it, where everything
else asking gets it too.
A new requirement, and it is mostly a shape the mesh already has. A
module that needs to think requires model-access; several vendors and a
locally-run model are several modules providing it; choosing is assigning
the one you want. A model the mesh runs itself needs nothing new at all —
it is a mesh-scoped provision on the node with the hardware, credential
included.
A licence is a named thing because the whole point is saying which one a
given consumer uses, and the names are the operator's. Many to many, so
not a claim: two machines sharing an account is ordinary, not a
collision.
Four gaps, written as gaps rather than design:
- a provider that is on no node, reached over the public internet, which
the reachability rule must not refuse
- a secret the mesh is GIVEN rather than mints. Every credential it
handles today it generated and discarded; an API key arrives from a
person, and accepting one must still discard the plaintext
- a consumer that is not a machine. Which licence a worker uses is a
binding to an agent, and the provisions model has no consumer identity
other than a node
- switching on exhaustion is a reaction to something observed, not a
declaration. It belongs with observability, changing a binding — saying
so is what stops the declaration language growing a conditional
The existing auto-refresh and switching is not being replaced because it
was wrong. It is being rebuilt because it lives somewhere that cannot
express the rest.
First end-to-end raise. A machine with a container runtime applied the
bundle its host carries and ended with a store, databases, schemas, a
broker holding a certificate it generated itself, and the control plane
serving. Then it took a token, checked the broker against the pinned
fingerprint, generated three keypairs and enrolled — the first node being
a node whose mesh is not up yet, observed rather than argued.
And a credential crossed. Declared the provider of a database for a
second node and pushed to over the broker, the machine ended with the
password in one file at mode 0600, and that password appears nowhere in
the declaration that crossed the broker, nowhere in the control plane's
database, and nowhere in what the node reported back. That is the whole
secrets argument, measured.
One fault, in the joining: the token did not say what the mesh calls the
machine, so enrolment needed a flag its own help said it did not, and
failed at the broker with an empty username. It is the fifth thing a
token carries now — the node cannot work its own name out, because the
broker account it authenticates as is named after it and exists before
the mesh has told it anything.
A password nothing was told to create authenticates nowhere. The mesh
generates one, seals it to both ends and cannot read it — so it cannot
tell the software to accept it either. Something on the providing machine
reads what arrived and makes it true.
That something belongs to the module, not to the mesh. The control plane
decides and never touches a machine; a provisioner runs on the machine
and touches it. What the mesh owns is the contract: a manifest of who
asked and where each credential is, and one file per consumer holding it.
It reconciles and is never told what changed, which forces three things
that are each a fault somebody has shipped: set the password every time
or a rotation changes nothing; remove what nobody asks for or a departed
consumer keeps a login for ever; leave alone what it did not make or it
cannot be run on anything that predates it.
Saying where the mesh stops is the point. It decides, delivers, and can
prove what it delivered; the last inch belongs to whoever knows what
`create role` means.
Written after looking at how the existing mesh does it, so this is a
reaction to a measurement rather than a preference.
There, credentials sit in a column encrypted at rest. Its own tooling
records what that bought: the tool for finding a secret matches by value
rather than by name, because the same password is in three tables, in
each node's environment file in plain text, and inside every connection
string composed from it — copies its documentation calls the ones usually
in use. And a query against the encrypted column returns zero rows and
proves nothing, so auditing moved to the decrypted copies.
Encryption at rest addresses neither fault. The control plane can read
what it stores, so a copy of its database is a copy of everything. And
composition is what mints the untracked copies.
So the value is sealed to the node that will use it before it is stored,
with a key that node generated. Nothing central is composed. What it
costs is auditing by value, which was never real anyway; what stays
answerable is which node holds what, which is what rotation asks.
What remains is a provisioner. The mesh generates the secret and tells
both ends; nothing yet acts on the telling.
Which turned out to be the useful way to cut it. A provider says what a
consumer needs in order to use it; a consumer says where it wants to be
told; the mesh adds which machine and what that machine is called on the
private network. So an app on one node reaches its database on another,
by a name the mesh also created.
The file says it carries no credential and why, because a missing field
looks like a bug and a stated absence looks like a boundary.
What remains is the secret itself, and the shape it will arrive in now
exists.
Also: two machines wired together across no private network is refused,
and that only became checkable when the network stopped being something a
machine has by virtue of holding an address.
jschoubben