Files
hq/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
T
jschoubben 333356cff3 Order the records the way the system is learned
Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when
things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway
since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week.

Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering
rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at
15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between.

Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what
runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is
checked (17-18), how we work (19-23).

Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a
compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files
want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single
simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number
was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at
the wrong record while still resolving.

Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching
text and target.

The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the
repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and
there was no reason for the records to be the exception.
2026-08-28 23:30:42 +02:00

236 lines
12 KiB
Markdown

---
layer: to-be
status: designed
code: []
updated: 2026-08-27
decisions:
- 02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0006-the-substrate-and-the-control-plane.md
---
# Connectivity
One of [the control plane's](06-the-control-plane.md) ten contexts, and the one with the most
moving parts: **overlay, resolution, exposure, filtering, certificates.**
It is written as a whole because the five are one design. They share inputs, they must agree, and
every one of them today is computed in a different place by a different module from a different
copy of the same facts.
## Why it is control-plane work
Apply [the test](06-the-control-plane.md) — *everything that needs to know about more than one
node* — to each responsibility:
| | needs to know | whose |
|---|---|---|
| **overlay** — who peers with whom, at what address | **every node**, and which of them can be dialled | control plane |
| **resolution** — which name is which node | **every node** | control plane |
| **exposure** — which public name reaches which container | **which node is publicly reachable** ([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md)) | control plane |
| **filtering** — which port is open, to whom | what is assigned here, and the overlay's shape | control plane decides, host applies |
| **certificates** — who may present which name | which name belongs to which node | control plane |
**Not one of the five can be answered by a machine on its own.** That is the whole reason this is
a context rather than a set of node-local modules — and it is exactly what the current
arrangement gets wrong, by computing all five on the node from a direct database connection.
## The shape: decided centrally, delivered as files
Every one of the five resolves the same way, and it is worth stating once rather than five times:
> **The connectivity context computes the configuration. It arrives over the link as `file`
> resources. The service reads files and knows nothing about the mesh.**
This costs **no new host vocabulary**. `file`, `directory`, `service` and `container` already
exist; WireGuard, the resolver and the proxy are all *a container or a package, plus files*.
It is also what removes the last two upward dependencies.
[Research 006](../../01-RESEARCH/006-mesh-from-scratch/host-size.md) counted exactly two modules
opening a direct connection to the control plane's database — `wireguard` and `traefik` — and
they are the reason every node permanently holds a credential to it
([ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)). Both are connectivity
modules. **Closing this context closes that set.**
## The order it comes up in
The one thing to get right, because everything else depends on it:
```
0 the node has an underlay address the machine's own — DHCP, or a provider gave it one
1 the node dials the mesh OVER THE UNDERLAY, at the address in its token
2 it proves itself, and is proved to the link exists (ADR 0004, ADR 0004)
3 the mesh grants it an identity and an overlay address
4 the overlay comes up peer graph delivered as files
5 names resolve resolver config delivered as files
6 filtering is applied derived from what is assigned here
7 routes and certificates once this node has something to expose
```
**Step 1 runs on the underlay and never on the overlay.** This is the circularity that must not
be created: the overlay is configured by the mesh, so a link that required the overlay could
never be established on a new node. The link stays on the underlay permanently — it is
outbound-only and carries its own identity, so it needs nothing the overlay provides.
**Nothing before step 3 can resolve a mesh name**, which is why the token carries an *address*
([ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)). Today this is
patched with an `/etc/hosts` floor written underneath the resolver; under this design there is
nothing to patch.
## 1 — The overlay
**What is decided:** the peer graph. For every node: its overlay address, which peers it holds,
which of those it may dial, and which must dial it.
**Inputs, all declared:**
- **reachability** — an endpoint, or none
([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md)). Not
inferred from the address shape, which is wrong for carrier-grade NAT, wrong for IPv6, and
wrong for a routable address behind a closed firewall.
- **site** — where the machine physically is, or nothing if it roams.
- **role** — hub or not, **declared**. Today it is inferred from an address prefix, which means a
renumbering is an outage and nothing can be asked which node is the hub.
**Keys.** Each node generates its own keypair. **The private key never leaves the machine**; the
public key is published to the mesh. This is already true and it is already right — it is
[ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)'s *a node holds its own
identity* applied to the overlay, and it means the control plane computes a graph it cannot
itself impersonate.
**Shape: a hub, with direct peering between co-located nodes.**
| | |
|---|---|
| two nodes at the same site | peer **directly**, host-routed, with a keepalive |
| everything else | routes through the **hub** |
| a node with no site — it roams | **hub only** |
**Roaming is hub-only deliberately, and the reason is a property of WireGuard rather than a
preference: there is no failover.** A more specific route to a dead endpoint blackholes; it does
not fall back to the general one. So a node whose location changes gets exactly one path, because
two paths would mean one of them silently swallowing traffic.
**What the host receives:** an interface configuration and a peer list, as files. It does not
compute them, and after this it holds no credential to the mesh's database.
## 2 — Resolution
**Two name spaces, and they do not mix:**
| | resolves to | certified by |
|---|---|---|
| **internal names** | overlay addresses | the **mesh CA** |
| **public names** | whatever the outside world must reach | a **public authority** |
A node's mesh name is its overlay address. Its public name, if it has one, is a separate fact
used by things outside the mesh — and the separation carries two lessons that were learned
expensively enough to be worth restating:
- **Mesh names are not multicast names.** A name resolved by local multicast discovery introduces
a delay and a failure mode that appears on one node and not others — the worst shape a fault
can have.
- **A node must not pin its own public name locally.** The duplicate record breaks resolution of
that name for everything else that needs it.
**What the host receives:** the resolver's configuration, as files, listing every peer's internal
name and overlay address.
**What goes away:** the `/etc/hosts` floor. It exists because a node had to reach the mesh
database before its own DNS existed; with [ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)
nothing needs a name before the link, and a fallback nothing needs is a path nothing tests.
## 3 — Exposure
Settled by [ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md); summarised here because
this is where it belongs.
**A route is a grant.** A module that must be reachable declares it needs one; the proxy provides
it and hands back the public name. Ordinary
[ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md)
vocabulary — the mirror of a database grant, where the consumer supplies a target and receives a
name rather than supplying nothing and receiving credentials.
**A workload on an unreachable node is proxied by a reachable one, across the overlay.** Which is
the case is a mesh-level fact, which is the fourth reason exposure is control-plane work.
## 4 — Filtering
**Derived from what is assigned here, and from the overlay's shape** — a node's open ports are a
consequence of what runs on it and who must reach it, not an independent declaration to keep in
step by hand.
**A rule names its source** ([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md)).
A rule with no source is open, and must say so rather than appear to restrict something. `scope:`
is removed rather than implemented: five manifests carry it today, it is referenced by no code,
and it is the clearest instance in the repository of *an unenforced rule is indistinguishable
from a wrong one, and costs more, because people believe it.*
**Unknown keys are refused** — the discipline the host's declaration parser already has
([ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md)), and
the one manifests lack. `scope:` survived because nothing rejected it.
## 5 — Certificates
**Two authorities, kept separate on purpose.**
| | issued by | for |
|---|---|---|
| **public names** | a public ACME authority | anything outside the mesh reaches |
| **internal names** | the **mesh CA** | node-to-node, over the overlay |
**The split is not collapsed, including in the lab.** A single-CA lab would hide any bug living
in the split, so the lab runs its own ACME issuer on its public segment and keeps the mesh CA
unchanged ([research 004](../../01-RESEARCH/004-lab-network/00-overview.md)).
**Public issuance requires genuine public reachability.** The HTTP-01 challenge must be answered
at the name being certified, so issuance happens through a publicly reachable node regardless of
where the workload runs — the same asymmetry as exposure, for the same reason.
**The issuer must be configurable.** Today it is not: the proxy sets no `caServer` and therefore
defaults to the public authority's *production* endpoint. Two consequences, and the second is
worse than the lab problem that found it — every certificate experiment on a real node consumes
production issuance quota, and a retry loop can exhaust it for a week.
**The mesh CA is not a bootstrap concern.** A joining node verifies the control plane against the
fingerprint in its token ([ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)),
so nothing needs the CA before membership. It certifies internal names afterwards, and that is
all it does.
## What this removes
The list is worth having in one place, because it is most of the argument:
- **The last two direct database connections from nodes** — `wireguard` and `traefik`, the only
two, both connectivity.
- **Therefore the database credential on every node**, and the object-store credential beside it.
[ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)'s central claim becomes
true rather than aspirational.
- **The `/etc/hosts` floor**, and the bootstrap circularity it patched.
- **Hub election by address prefix**, and the silent no-hub failure when nobody knew the
convention.
- **The RFC1918 inference**, and the lab substitution that existed to satisfy it.
- **`scope:`**, and the class of manifest key that means nothing.
## Open
- ~~**What happens when the hub is down.**~~ **Resolved** by
[ADR 0006](../../02-DECISIONS/0006-the-substrate-and-the-control-plane.md), together with `06`'s
matching question — they were one question. Nothing takes over. WireGuard has no failover, the
hub is declared rather than elected, and non-co-located paths stop while co-located direct peers
and every already-assigned workload keep running. The recovery path is restore, and its deadline
is certificate renewal.
- **Renumbering the overlay.** Made *possible* by declaring the hub rather than inferring it from
an address, but no procedure exists, and a graph delivered node by node has an ordering problem
while it is half-applied.
- **Revoking a route** when a module is unassigned ([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md)).
A stale public name pointing at nothing fails more visibly than a stale grant.
- **IPv6.** [ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md) makes
it expressible; nothing here says the overlay or the resolver handle it.
- **Reporting declared-versus-observed.** ADR 0007 makes the disagreement detectable and does not
say who looks or what they are told.