SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-14 12:12:27 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Changing Acess Control Policy model #1986

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 06:10:43 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:10:43 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Coler-e on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Might just be me nitpicking on a UX choixe made by the team but I find it frustrating that if I want to explicitely configure some TCP, UDP ports and a behaviour regarding ICMP I have to configure 3 different policies and apply them to the group/ressources they target.

Describe the solution you'd like
I would like to be able to configure all 3 from a singular access policy.

Describe alternatives you've considered
The alternative is just keeping on defining multiple policies so far (Or using another solution entirely but I took a liking to NetBird and already come from another solution and honestly not a deal-breaker for me).

Additional context
Exemple of a unified access policy experience :
Image

Originally created by @Coler-e on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Might just be me nitpicking on a UX choixe made by the team but I find it frustrating that if I want to explicitely configure some TCP, UDP ports and a behaviour regarding ICMP I have to configure 3 different policies and apply them to the group/ressources they target. **Describe the solution you'd like** I would like to be able to configure all 3 from a singular access policy. **Describe alternatives you've considered** The alternative is just keeping on defining multiple policies so far (Or using another solution entirely but I took a liking to NetBird and already come from another solution and honestly not a deal-breaker for me). **Additional context** Exemple of a unified access policy experience : ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d577d1f8-d3a2-4e90-b343-31c7a5c07035)
saavagebueno added the feature-requestUXmanagement-servicedashboard labels 2025-11-20 06:10:43 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:10:44 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025):

@Coler-e, would handling policy creation like that help, or is it important to keep grouping while editing and viewing the policies?

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025): @Coler-e, would handling policy creation like that help, or is it important to keep grouping while editing and viewing the policies?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:10:44 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025):

Personally, I feel like it would be a lot easier to handle and reason about if it were a single object policing all of the connections between X & Y instead of spreading it across multiple policies serving the same purpose with only a single change between them. It would apply just the same to the GUI (Dashboard) and ease of reading automation code (like Terraform, scripts using the API etc.).

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025): Personally, I feel like it would be a lot easier to handle and reason about if it were a single object policing all of the connections between X & Y instead of spreading it across multiple policies serving the same purpose with only a single change between them. It would apply just the same to the GUI (Dashboard) and ease of reading automation code (like Terraform, scripts using the API etc.).
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:10:44 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Coler-e commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025):

My exact thoughts @nazarewk . And if some people liked the current model more they could still create their policies by protocol anyway.

People more likely think in terms of services when building such network rules, instead of say creating an HTTPS policy that they then spread to any services using https

@Coler-e commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2025): My exact thoughts @nazarewk . And if some people liked the current model more they could still create their policies by protocol anyway. People more likely think in terms of services when building such network rules, instead of say creating an HTTPS policy that they then spread to any services using https
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:10:44 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Blackclaws commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025):

Copying my comment from Slack:

The N to N access policies make it easy to set up connections for multiple people to multiple resources at the same time but when you have individuals you want to give access to resources and only them then it quickly gets a bit crowded. Same if you have different resources with different port requirements.I'm wondering whether grouping the access policies somehow would alleviate that.

Also when you want to allow ICMP and connection to one TCP port then it also becomes two access policies instead of one.

It would be great if you could set up an access policy that just contains a number of rules that are all applied, like an access policy collection.

So this goes a bit further than what is suggested here but is a bit of a companion request. Having an access policy that handles all three types with directioness as well (where supported) would be great. What would be even better is if you could set up a number of these access policies for one group to X groups and therefore group access policy groups in a bit of a treelike structure.

@Blackclaws commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025): Copying my comment from Slack: The N to N access policies make it easy to set up connections for multiple people to multiple resources at the same time but when you have individuals you want to give access to resources and only them then it quickly gets a bit crowded. Same if you have different resources with different port requirements.I'm wondering whether grouping the access policies somehow would alleviate that. Also when you want to allow ICMP and connection to one TCP port then it also becomes two access policies instead of one. It would be great if you could set up an access policy that just contains a number of rules that are all applied, like an access policy collection. So this goes a bit further than what is suggested here but is a bit of a companion request. Having an access policy that handles all three types with directioness as well (where supported) would be great. What would be even better is if you could set up a number of these access policies for one group to X groups and therefore group access policy groups in a bit of a treelike structure.
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 dashboard feature-request management-service UX
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#1986
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?