tractor/ai/tpt-backends/README.md

next-gen tractor.ipc transport backend plans

Implementation specs for three prospective .ipc transport backends, written so each can be worked independently (by a different model/provider) without design or lib-selection drift.

Read 00_shared_backend_contract.md first — it is the normative description of what a tractor transport backend is as of main@83b34884 (the backend duck-type, the 10-item registration checklist, the test-harness plumbing, the code-style rules). The three plans assume it and document only their own deltas.

plan	issue	dep	size	lands
01 — TIPC	#378	none (stdlib)	small	landed, PR #493 — see the handoff
02 — QUIC/iroh	#353	iroh (uniffi FFI)	large	needs a prep PR
03 — wg bindspace	#482, #443	pyroute2	medium, 3 layers	layer A now
04 — /tipc multiaddr	#498	upstream multiformats	issue draft	local review

Headline conclusions:

• TIPC is the cheap win. Verified: trio.SocketStream and trio.SocketListener are address-family agnostic (only SOCK_STREAM + a trio socket), and CPython ships AF_TIPC + 23 TIPC_* constants. So the backend is ~one module of contract boilerplate, zero new deps, and it buys kernel-native service discovery: bind() publishes, connect()-by-name resolves — no registrar in the loop. (modprobe tipc is required; hard-gate everything.)
• QUIC’s cost is entirely in two adapters, not in QUIC. The iroh python bindings are uniffi-generated asyncio, but the asyncio dependency is confined to one future-poll callback — a ~40-line trio bridge (TrioToken.run_sync_soon) replaces it. The second cost is that an iroh listener isn’t a socket, which needs a small, independently-reviewable prep PR to _server.py/_types.py.
• WireGuard is not a transport. It’s an iface-layer tunnel, so it belongs as a nested bindspace (TunnelledAddress + open_bindspace() @acms) wrapping whatever L4 tpt is in use — which is also what finally implements the long-spec’d Address.namespace, and what generalizes to veth/vxlan/gre.

Ordering rationale: plan 01 first as the cheap proof the table-registration story generalizes to a genuinely new proto; plan 03 layer A is already deployable-today doc/example work; plan 02 last (and gated on its prep PR). Plans 01 and 02 both want the same Address.rebind_from_sockname gate — whichever lands first ships it.