2026-09-28 20:58:03 +00:00
2 changed files with 148 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-28
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 140 — An endpoint's reach is not declared, so three mechanisms each decide it separately
+
+## What was observed
+
+Preparing to converge the mesh's control-node — the last machine still running the firewall it
+had before the mesh — the question came up for one module: the forge serves git over ssh, and that
+port must stay reachable from outside the private network. Where is that said?
+
+The manifest declares the port with a source of `mesh`, so the derived filter would close it to
+everything but the private network. Looking for the place an assignment says otherwise, there are
+two per-node settings keys: one that gives a module's declared port a machine port, and one that
+overrides a declared port's source. The second has exactly one caller — the function that builds
+the node's filter rules. Nothing else in the control plane reads it.
+
+A module's routed endpoint is declared somewhere else entirely: a route contribution naming a label
+and a port. It says nothing about reach. The proxy composes a **public** name and an **internal**
+name for every route it is given, and obtains a certificate for each from a different authority.
+Measured on that machine the same day: an identity provider's public name signed by the public
+authority for 90 days, its internal name signed by the mesh's own intermediate for 24 hours and
+renewed daily. Both names exist, and both certificates, because the proxy makes every name it can.
+No assignment asked for either.
+
+So the forge's ssh endpoint has a firewall source and nothing else — no name, no certificate, and no
+way to say it should be public other than a key the filter alone reads. And the forge's web endpoint
+has two names and two certificates that nobody requested.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**Reach is stated twice, in two vocabularies, in two places that cannot disagree out loud.** A port
+may be exposed to anywhere while the module contributes no public route; a public route may be served
+for a module whose own listen is private. Nothing reconciles the pair or refuses it. Each mechanism
+is separately defensible and the combination is unstated.
+
+**The vocabulary belongs to the filter, not to reachability.** *Public, internal, or both* cannot be
+expressed. A source of `anywhere` is one rule on one chain; it says nothing about which names should
+exist or which authority should sign them. So "this endpoint must not be public" has no way to be
+written, and is therefore enforced by nothing — while a public certificate for that very name is
+obtained automatically.
+
+**An endpoint is not a thing in the model.** A module has ports, and separately it has routes.
+Nothing binds a port to a name to a certificate, which is why three mechanisms each decide reach on
+their own and none of them is wrong. This is
+[ADR 0045](../../02-DECISIONS/0045-a-machine-firewall-is-the-sum-of-what-it-listens-on.md)'s fault
+one level up: that record closed "a declaration that reads as a restriction and restricts nothing"
+for the packet filter. Here the declaration is absent altogether and the mechanisms guess.
+
+**It blocks the certificate work.** The open question recorded for certificates — a name that must
+not be public needs either DNS-01 or the internal authority only — cannot be answered while no
+assignment states whether a name should be public. Neither can expiry reporting, revocation, or what
+happens to a name when a machine leaves: all of them need to know which names were *meant*.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should an assignment name each of a module's endpoints, bind it to a node-level port, and state
+  whether it is reachable publicly, internally or both — with the filter, the proxy's names and the
+  certificate authority all derived from that one statement?
+- What is an endpoint that is neither routed nor certified? Git over ssh is public reach with no name
+  and no certificate; the model has to hold that without inventing one.
+- Are the two existing settings keys the same statement, half-built? If so, is this a new declaration
+  or the completion of theirs?
+- Does an internal-only endpoint get a certificate at all, and from which authority — and does that
+  settle [issue 129](../129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/00-report.md), where nothing
+  installs the mesh's own root?
+- Does declaring reach per assignment also settle
+  [issue 139](../139-an-internal-route-name-resolves-to-the-consumers-node/00-report.md), where an
+  internal name resolves to the consumer's machine instead of the one serving the endpoint?
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-28
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 141 — The forward chain does not follow the modules, though the modules declare their networks
+
+## What was observed
+
+[ADR 0137](../../02-DECISIONS/0137-a-machine-says-which-networks-it-routes.md), decided the same
+week, gave a machine a way to say which networks it routes for its guests, because the derived
+filter's forward chain had until then allowed two ranges named as constants in the control plane's
+own source — the container runtime's default bridge pool, and half of the pool its compose files
+are given.
+
+Checking the last machine still to be converged, the same fault was found to be live there, and the
+declaration needed to work around it turned out to be wrong in kind.
+
+That machine hosts twenty-one container networks. Nine fall inside the runtime's bridge pool and
+are forwarded. Twelve sit in the other private range, and **six of those fall below the lower bound
+of the constant**, so the flip would have cut their guests off exactly as it did on the workstation
+that produced 0137.
+
+Naming a range to cover the six was the obvious move, and is what 0137 provides for. But of those
+six networks, **four are networks the mesh's own modules declare** — they appear as network
+resources in the node's plan, created by the host because a module asked for them — and **two are
+leftovers of the predecessor**, compose networks of services the mesh does not run. A range wide
+enough to keep the four would have forwarded the two as well: a firewall widened by hand to protect
+networks that should not exist.
+
+The mesh already knows which of the twenty-one are its own. It made them.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**The node's configuration is supposed to follow the modules assigned to it.** That is the mesh's
+founding shape — the machine runs modules, and its files, its filter and its accounts are composed
+from what runs there. The forward chain is the one derived thing that does not: it consults two
+constants and, since 0137, a list a person types. A module added tomorrow brings a network the filter
+will not forward; a module deprecated leaves a range in the list that outlives it.
+
+**A typed range cannot distinguish the mesh's networks from what was left behind.** It is stated in
+addresses, and addresses are what the runtime allocates, so the only honest declaration is one wide
+enough to include whatever else the runtime has handed out. The derivation is narrower than anything
+a person can safely write, because it names networks rather than ranges.
+
+**0137 rejected deriving this, and was right about what it rejected.** It considered deriving the
+list from *what the machine reports* and refused, on two grounds: a test bed creates its bridge
+between one declaration and the next, and a filter that follows whatever appeared on the machine is a
+firewall that widens itself. Deriving from the **declaration** is neither. The set is known before
+the network exists, because a module declared it; and it cannot widen itself, because only a network
+some module asked for is ever forwarded. What remains genuinely for a machine to say is guests no
+module declares — a test bed's pool — which is a much smaller residue than the list as it stands.
+
+**The gap is invisible in the one place that should show it.** The converge preview lists what
+*listens*, and routing is not a listener. It says in one line what the machine routes, and a reader
+has to know the runtime's allocations to tell whether that line is sufficient. On the machine
+measured here it read as though nothing needed saying.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should the forward chain be derived from the network resources the node's modules declare, with the
+  host resolving each declared network to its address the way it already resolves a container by name?
+  The controller cannot render the address itself: a module's network resource carries a name, and the
+  runtime allocates the subnet at creation.
+- What remains of `node networks` once that exists — only guests no module declares, such as a test
+  bed's pool? And should it then be named for that, rather than for all routing?
+- The runtime's own default bridge, which containers attach to when no module network is named, is
+  not a module's network. Is it derived from the machine, declared by the module that owns the
+  runtime, or left as the one constant?
+- Should the preview say which of a machine's networks are the mesh's and which are not, so a range
+  that exists to protect a leftover is visible as such?