Compare commits
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
c8935aceca | ||
|
|
29b656f2c0 | ||
|
|
d05ac367f1 |
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
status: located
|
||||
status: resolved
|
||||
opened: 2026-10-02
|
||||
located-in: [mesh-host internal/apply (removeOrphan: a former target of a kind with no removal was fatal), mesh-host internal/store (Record keeps a former target for every kind, the host's own archive included)]
|
||||
fixed-by:
|
||||
fixed-by: mesh-host 65 — a former target of a kind the host cannot remove is left in place, said and forgotten; a dropped archive still refuses
|
||||
amended-design:
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -62,3 +62,10 @@ because the alternative was four machines that could apply nothing.
|
||||
- Is there a bed that replaces a host under the current rules before the live mesh does
|
||||
(the proof row of [ADR 0141](../../02-DECISIONS/0141-the-host-delivers-its-own-successor.md) was
|
||||
a single crossover, before former targets existed)?
|
||||
|
||||
## Resolved, 2026-10-02
|
||||
|
||||
mesh-host 65, merged 07:35Z. Recovered as the record above says: the operator dropped the one
|
||||
`@former:` entry from each machine's host record and pushed; the fixed host then ran on all four and
|
||||
its first apply said `forgotten mesh-host.next@former:… a former target left in place` and applied the
|
||||
rest. The open questions stand as questions for the host's own versions, not as faults.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
status: located
|
||||
status: resolved
|
||||
opened: 2026-10-02
|
||||
located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/filtering.go (AsNftables: the forward chain has no rule for the mesh passing through, so a relayed packet is judged by this machine's own published ports)]
|
||||
fixed-by:
|
||||
fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 209 (the forward chain relays what comes in and goes out on the tunnel), live 2026-10-02
|
||||
amended-design: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -45,3 +45,10 @@ same day, and that explanation fit well enough that the per-port pattern was not
|
||||
mesh? That would duplicate the target's rules on the hub.
|
||||
- No test raises two machines behind a hub and checks a port between them that the hub does not
|
||||
publish. The lab's beds have one machine per site.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resolved (2026-10-02)
|
||||
|
||||
Live on all four machines after one push each. The same sweep, from both home machines to the third
|
||||
over the mesh: 45 of 55 ports answer, the same 45 the hub reaches directly. The 9 that do not are
|
||||
ports the target opens to nobody on the mesh, and one is refused because it listens only on a LAN
|
||||
address. Nothing answers that the target's rules do not open.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user