jschoubben
4e80820e2f
Written as one document 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. The through-line is that none of the five can be answered by a machine alone, so all five are decided centrally and delivered as `file` resources. That costs no new host vocabulary and removes both remaining direct database connections from nodes -- wireguard and traefik are the only two, and both are connectivity. Three decisions fall out, all proposed: 0050 -- reachability is declared, not inferred from an address. The RFC1918 regex is wrong for carrier-grade NAT (100.64/10 tests as public, so an endpoint is written to an address nothing can reach), wrong for IPv6, and wrong for a routable address behind a closed firewall. The lab needing TEST-NET-3 to satisfy the regex is the same bug from the other side. Also kills hub election by address prefix, which fails silently and makes renumbering an outage. 0051 -- the enrolment token carries where the mesh is and how to recognise it. Closes two circles with one mechanism: verifying the mesh needed the CA, and obtaining the CA meant trusting whoever handed it over; and a node had to reach the mesh before it could resolve any mesh name. An address plus a fingerprint, carried out of band, resolves both -- and closes the CA question 0049 deferred. 0052 -- a filter rule names its source. `scope:` is declared in five manifests, is part of no rule type, and is referenced by no code, so those manifests appear to restrict ports and restrict nothing. Removed rather than implemented; the general fix is refusing unknown keys, which the host already does and manifests do not. Also corrects two claims in 0049 asserting wireguard was already handled. Research 006 says both modules still reach upward; neither is.
03-DESIGN / 01-to-be
The mesh being built toward. Every statement here traces to a record in
02-DECISIONS/; nothing arrives by drafting.
A document here describes an intention. What currently runs is in
00-as-is/, and the two are never merged — when something ships, the as-is
document is written and this one's status becomes implemented.
| Document | Covers | Rests on |
|---|---|---|
00-work-breakdown.md |
How the decomposition gets built, in what order, and where a human must look | ADR 0015 |
01-end-to-end-testing.md |
The lab: a real mesh a change can be run against before it reaches nodes | ADR 0016, 0029 |
02-scenario-declaration.md |
What a scenario declares — the underlay, and what to place on it | ADR 0031 |
03-scenario-lifecycle.md |
What happens to a scenario — raise, snapshot, restore, move, destroy | ADR 0032 |
04-lab-installation.md |
Getting the lab onto a clean machine, and why it verifies capability rather than installation | ADR 0008 |
05-the-node-host.md |
Tier 0 — the one thing installed by hand, and the only thing that changes a machine | ADR 0037 |
06-the-control-plane.md |
Tier 2 — what the term means, and the test for what belongs in it | ADR 0037 |
07-the-substrate.md |
Tier 1 — what the control plane consumes and cannot grant itself | ADR 0038, 0048 |
08-connectivity.md |
One context in full — overlay, resolution, exposure, filtering, certificates | ADR 0049, 0050, 0051 |
Not yet written
- The remaining contexts. ADR 0015
decides the decomposition;
connectivityis the first written in full (08) and the others do not exist yet. The work breakdown says in what order they are needed. - Domain grouping outside the core. ADR 0017 settles the principle and explicitly does not settle the domain list. That is a research effort, not a design document, until it concludes.