SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-11 01:41:55 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add Maintenace Mode for the Router Peers #1795

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 06:06:56 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:06:56 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @danieleblanc87 on GitHub (Apr 7, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I often face situations where a router peer needs to undergo maintenance, but there is no easy way to automatically reroute traffic to a backup peer. This results in service interruptions or requires manual intervention, leading to potential delays and disruptions.

Describe the solution you'd like
I would like the ability to place a router peer into 'maintenance mode' and automatically notify clients to reconnect to a backup router peer that is not in maintenance mode. This would ensure high availability and provide a seamless user experience during maintenance, minimizing any potential impact.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Accept the impacts.

Additional context
This feature would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the network infrastructure, making maintenance operations smoother and reducing the risk of service disruptions.

Originally created by @danieleblanc87 on GitHub (Apr 7, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** I often face situations where a router peer needs to undergo maintenance, but there is no easy way to automatically reroute traffic to a backup peer. This results in service interruptions or requires manual intervention, leading to potential delays and disruptions. **Describe the solution you'd like** I would like the ability to place a router peer into 'maintenance mode' and automatically notify clients to reconnect to a backup router peer that is not in maintenance mode. This would ensure high availability and provide a seamless user experience during maintenance, minimizing any potential impact. **Describe alternatives you've considered** Accept the impacts. **Additional context** This feature would enhance the flexibility and reliability of the network infrastructure, making maintenance operations smoother and reducing the risk of service disruptions.
saavagebueno added the feature-requestclientclient-ui labels 2025-11-20 06:06:56 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:06:57 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jordantrujillo-hl commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2025):

Can't you just change the metric of your router peers? Lower number is the priority.

@jordantrujillo-hl commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2025): Can't you just change the metric of your router peers? Lower number is the priority.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:06:57 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2025):

@danieleblanc87 In HA mode, the route should change to another routing peer once the peer goes offline. Is this not the case for your peers?

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2025): @danieleblanc87 In HA mode, the route should change to another routing peer once the peer goes offline. Is this not the case for your peers?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:06:57 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2025):

I can confirm the route changes. I believe what they are asking for is the ability to change it PRIOR to dropping a peer?

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2025): I can confirm the route changes. I believe what they are asking for is the ability to change it PRIOR to dropping a peer?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:06:58 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@danieleblanc87 commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2025):

@jordantrujillo-hl My configuration is self-hosted, and for routing, I use a group of peers with at least two routing peers. The metric is applied to the group, at least as I understand it.

@mlsmaycon That’s correct, but there is no any control over failover process. The feature request would enable better control of routing peers during maintenance activities, reducing the impact on users.
Specifically, I would like to prevent clients from connecting to a routing peer that is about to be restarted for maintenance, thus avoiding disruptions to user operations.

@danieleblanc87 commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2025): @jordantrujillo-hl My configuration is self-hosted, and for routing, I use a group of peers with at least two routing peers. The metric is applied to the group, at least as I understand it. @mlsmaycon That’s correct, but there is no any control over failover process. The feature request would enable better control of routing peers during maintenance activities, reducing the impact on users. Specifically, I would like to prevent clients from connecting to a routing peer that is about to be restarted for maintenance, thus avoiding disruptions to user operations.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
2021 Q4
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
accessibility
acl
agent
agent
Android
Android
api
authentik
automation
azure
battery-usage
bug
cache
client
client-ui
cloud
cloud-only
cloudflare
community
compatibility
config-idp
config-issue
connection
contribution
coturn
cross-vpn
dashboard
data-usage
distribution
dns
docker
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
enhancement
event-stream
feature-request
freebsd
getting-started
go
good first issue
gui
help wanted
home-assistant
idp
inconsistency
integration
integrations
ios
ipv6
jwt
k8s
keycloak
linux
login
macos
management-service
missing-docs
mobile
moved-internal
needs-review
netbird-ui
networking
new-platform
nginx
notification
okta
openwrt
packaging
peer-management
peer-management
peer-management
performance
postgres
posture-checks
psk
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
refactor
relay
release
rfc
routes
security
security-related
self-hosting
server
signal
sleep-issue
ssh
ssl
status
store
synology
system-compatibility-issue
test-suite
third-party-integration
triage
triage-needed
troubleshooting
UX
waiting-feedback
windows
wontfix
zitadel
No Label client client-ui feature-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
saavagebueno
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SVI/netbird#1795
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?