It is the commonest home LAN range there is, so on an ordinary workstation the
lab's private segment and the machine's own network are the same addresses. The
scenario routes an egress machine explicitly and marks the rest unreachable, so
nothing leaked — but that guard was carrying the whole weight of a collision
nobody chose, and a guard is a bad place for that.
10.99.1.0/24 is still RFC 1918, so the bed still models a home LAN behind an
access point. It is simply far from what this kind of machine already has:
192.168.1 is the LAN, 172.16-31 and 192.168.16-95 are container bridges, and
10.10/10.42/10.208 are a tunnel, the mesh overlay and the virtualisation daemon.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
The full topology now raises: four machines, three routers, a transit
router, six segments, in 35 seconds. Everything the declaration model can
express except `place`, which is refused because the node host it would
place does not exist yet.
Transit was a real gap, not a bug. The design says public networks are
unrelated and routed to each other, never bridged — and I built the
segments and never built the thing that routes between them, so three
public networks were islands and nothing crossed. A transit router now
holds an interface on every public segment, forwarding and no translation:
the closest thing the lab has to the internet, deliberately dumb.
Proven rather than asserted, by ping TTL across the raised topology:
within one segment ttl=64 no hops
across two unrelated public networks ttl=62 gateway + transit
multicast between public networks 0 replies
A flat internet would have shown ttl=64 and answered multicast — which
would let a node discover a peer it could never reach in production, and
report success. That is the fault the as-is layer records the mesh already
hitting with multicast name resolution.
inbound: deny is implemented as a host firewall on the machine, read back
after applying. A declared refusal that silently did not load leaves the
machine wide open, which looks exactly like a machine that is working.
Established and related traffic is accepted, so a defended machine can
still dial out rather than being a disconnected one.
Verified by running, all of it:
home -> devices (policy allow) reachable
devices -> home (policy deny) blocked
behind unforwardable NAT -> out reachable
in -> behind unforwardable NAT unreachable
inbound: deny, dialling out reachable
reaching a machine that denies inbound refused
The two routers differ exactly as declared: the forwardable one carries the
policy rule and no inbound drop, the unforwardable one carries `ct state
new drop` and no DNAT.
A declaration goes in and a disposable mesh comes out. Verified on a
workstation, not asserted: two machines raised and addressed in 14.6s,
snapshot 0.28s, restore-to-usable 11.6s, both families pinging with no
loss, and the workstation with no route into any of it.
The declaration layer implements the model in full — three positions a
machine can be in, keyed on forwardability; gateways carrying the address
the world sees them as; both address families; multi-homing; MTU;
inter-segment policy. It is validated hard because the failures it prevents
are silent: a private range on a public segment produces no error, the mesh
simply never forms. Public segments are refused unless they use RFC 5737 or
RFC 3849 space, and a range wider than the reserved block is refused too.
33 tests, all offline.
The runtime implements less than the model, and refuses the difference.
A scenario declaring gateways, published ports, policy, inbound deny or
place is rejected at raise with every gap named. Raising it would produce a
mesh that silently lacks what it declared, which is the fault this lab
exists to catch — 04-ISSUES/003, where a firewall key is declared in five
manifests and read by no code.
Three bugs found by review and by running it, all of one family:
The readiness check truthiness-tested incusOk's return. `exec … true`
succeeds with EMPTY output, so every machine reported unreachable while
incus exec on it worked perfectly. succeeds() now exists so the mistake is
not available, and network delete had the same bug — it counted zero
segments removed while removing them.
list() split instance from machine on the last dash, so a machine called
home-server absorbed half the instance id and destroy found nothing.
Resources are now found by the metadata they carry, never by name.
restore reported success in 0.79s while the machine's agent was still
starting, so the next command failed. Both raise and restore now wait for
usable and say how long that took — reporting the earlier number is
transport reported as effect, which is the fault the lab is being built to
find.
Two incus behaviours worth recording. Its CLI reads a YAML definition from
stdin when stdin is not a terminal, so a spawned command hangs until the
timeout kills it and arrives with empty stderr — a failure with no
explanation, on a command that works when typed. And it assigns a MAC at
runtime without recording it in device config, so MACs are derived and set
explicitly, which the guest needs anyway: it names interfaces by bus
position, and matching by name configures the wrong one on a multi-homed
machine.
No build step; Node strips the types. The lifecycle has no unit tests
because a fake hypervisor would assert that the fake behaves as expected,
which is the shape of test this project exists to stop shipping.
jschoubben