SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-10 17:31:53 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

routes enhancement: add custom routes to all peers or to a group of peers #185

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 05:07:37 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:07:37 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremyd on GitHub (Sep 10, 2022).

To route traffic from a group of peers toward a specific gateway. For example, in the use case of exit nodes where traffic crosses to the public internet, each peer that was a client of that exit node would need routes for the external addresses of the wireguard endpoints.

To accomplish this you could assign a custom route consisting of

ip route add <COTURN/NETBIRD MGMT/SIGNAL IP>/32 via <LOCAL NET GATEWAY> dev <INTERFACE>

so being able to specify the

  • ip range
  • gateway
  • interface

For a group of peers, or to all peers, this would accomplish the route distribution entirely via netbird!

Originally created by @jeremyd on GitHub (Sep 10, 2022). To route traffic from a group of peers toward a specific gateway. For example, in the use case of exit nodes where traffic crosses to the public internet, each peer that was a client of that exit node would need routes for the external addresses of the wireguard endpoints. To accomplish this you could assign a custom route consisting of ``` ip route add <COTURN/NETBIRD MGMT/SIGNAL IP>/32 via <LOCAL NET GATEWAY> dev <INTERFACE> ``` so being able to specify the * ip range * gateway * interface For a group of peers, or to all peers, this would accomplish the route distribution entirely via netbird!
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:07:38 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2022):

Thanks for submitting this suggestion @jeremyd

Regarding the functionality it will need a few more adjustments to avoid forwarding peer connection traffic via the exit node and entering the chicken and egg paradox.

We are looking at a combination of FWMARK and IP RULE for that in Linux, we also want to avoid multiple rules and namespace so we don't loose easy visibility on what we are doing on the peer OS.

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2022): Thanks for submitting this suggestion @jeremyd Regarding the functionality it will need a few more adjustments to avoid forwarding peer connection traffic via the exit node and entering the chicken and egg paradox. We are looking at a combination of FWMARK and IP RULE for that in Linux, we also want to avoid multiple rules and namespace so we don't loose easy visibility on what we are doing on the peer OS.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:07:38 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremyd commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2022):

Regarding the functionality it will need a few more adjustments to avoid forwarding peer connection traffic via the exit node and entering the chicken and egg paradox.

We are looking at a combination of FWMARK and IP RULE for that in Linux, we also want to avoid multiple rules and namespace so we don't loose easy visibility on what we are doing on the peer OS.

yes, perhaps with FWMARK and IP RULE the routes aren't the best option to use. Good point. I'm unsure if anyone would want custom routes in other cases besides exit nodes (or in combination with exit nodes). I really am looking forward to exit nodes!! :) Thank you.

@jeremyd commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2022): > Regarding the functionality it will need a few more adjustments to avoid forwarding peer connection traffic via the exit node and entering the chicken and egg paradox. > > We are looking at a combination of FWMARK and IP RULE for that in Linux, we also want to avoid multiple rules and namespace so we don't loose easy visibility on what we are doing on the peer OS. yes, perhaps with FWMARK and IP RULE the routes aren't the best option to use. Good point. I'm unsure if anyone would want custom routes in other cases besides exit nodes (or in combination with exit nodes). I really am looking forward to exit nodes!! :) Thank you.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:07:39 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MohammedNoureldin commented on GitHub (Mar 17, 2024):

Hi @jeremyd,

I am a bit confused.

I am trying to get route all connections of my clients (Windows or Linux peers, for example) to a specific exit node. For this, probably I have to setup a routing peer on that node.

But how should the connections from the clients (peers) supposed to get redirected to that exit node (or accurately to the routing peer on that exit node)?

Should every client (peer) configure his gateway manually to match the IP address of the routing peer?

Or can this gateway adaption happen automatically by Netbird client?

@MohammedNoureldin commented on GitHub (Mar 17, 2024): Hi @jeremyd, I am a bit confused. I am trying to get route all connections of my clients (Windows or Linux peers, for example) to a specific exit node. For this, probably I have to setup a routing peer on that node. But how should the connections from the clients (peers) supposed to get redirected to that exit node (or accurately to the routing peer on that exit node)? Should every client (peer) configure his gateway manually to match the IP address of the routing peer? Or can this gateway adaption happen automatically by Netbird client?
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
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#185
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?