2.5 KiB
2.5 KiB
BEP-0003 - CONNECT-IP and Negotiation Roadmap
Status: Draft
Proposal: BEP-0003
Authors: gpt-5.4
Coordinator: gpt-5.4
Reviewers: Pending
Constitution Sections: I, II, V
Implementation PRs: Pending
Decision Date: Pending
Summary
Burrow should grow from a WireGuard-first tunnel runner into a transport stack that can support HTTP/3 MASQUE CONNECT-IP and a richer node negotiation model. This proposal stages that work so Burrow can adopt the right abstractions instead of stapling QUIC-era semantics onto a WireGuard-only daemon.
Motivation
CONNECT-IPintroduces HTTP/3 sessions, context identifiers, address assignment, and route advertisements that do not fit the current daemon model.- A Tailscale-style control plane requires explicit node, endpoint, and session state rather than raw network blobs.
- The project needs a roadmap that distinguishes data-model work, control-plane work, and actual transport implementation.
Detailed Design
- Stage 1: land control-plane types and persistent auth/session/node storage.
- Stage 2: add transport-agnostic route, address-assignment, and policy abstractions in Burrow.
- Stage 3: implement MASQUE
CONNECT-IPframing and HTTP Datagram handling. - Stage 4: connect the transport layer to real relay, policy, and observability paths.
Security and Operational Considerations
CONNECT-IPchanges the trust boundary from WireGuard peers to HTTP/3 peers and relays; authentication, replay handling, and scope restriction must be explicit.- Route advertisements and delegated prefixes must be validated before touching the data plane.
- Control-plane capability claims must not imply support that the transport layer does not yet implement.
Contributor Playbook
- Keep protocol codecs independently testable before integrating them into live transports.
- Add interoperability tests for every new capsule or datagram type.
- Separate request parsing, policy validation, and packet forwarding so regressions stay localized.
Alternatives Considered
- Implement MASQUE directly in the daemon without control-plane refactoring. Rejected because the current daemon has no transport-neutral contract for routes or prefixes.
- Treat Tailscale negotiation as a one-off compatibility shim. Rejected because Burrow needs first-class control-plane concepts either way.
Impact on Other Work
- Depends on BEP-0002.
- Informs future relay, policy, and node coordination work.
Decision
Pending.
References
- RFC 9484
burrow/src/daemon/burrow/src/control/