---
status: open
opened: 2026-09-23
located-in: []
fixed-by:
amended-design:
---

# 105 — The hub of the private network is a placement, not a seat

## What was observed

Reading the registry of a one-node mesh, 2026-09-23. The private network claims a seat,
`the-private-network`, scoped to the **node** — because every node has an interface and a
mesh-scoped seat would refuse the second machine. The fact that matters, *which node is the hub the
others rendezvous at*, is a placement record (`overlay place <node> hub`) and no seat at all.

## Why it matters beyond this instance

The four foundation seats all say the same thing: *there is exactly one of me in this mesh*
([ADR 0079](../../02-DECISIONS/0079-the-foundation-seats-are-named-after-their-servers.md)). "There is
exactly one hub" is that shape. As a placement it is refused by nothing: two nodes can be placed as
hub, and the mesh would compute a graph with two rendezvous points and say nothing.

It also confuses the reading. Asked "who provides the private network", the registry answers with
a node-scoped seat held by every node, which is true and not what was asked.

## Open questions

- Should the hub be a mesh-scoped seat — `the-hub`, or the network's own name — claimed by the
  node that is placed there, refused elsewhere?
- Does the per-node seat still say anything once the hub is a seat, or is it the interface's
  presence restated?
- What else in the mesh is "exactly one" and recorded as a placement rather than a seat?