SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-09 17:02:09 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

LAN to LAN traffic between peers not working #2150

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 07:04:48 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:04:48 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Ignattious on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025).

Describe the problem

2 Peers

Netbird A
Netbird B

Each peer / site has 1 LAN attached:
A 10.1.100.0/24
B 10.1.101.0/24

Can ping between:

Netbird Peer Site A to LAN B (Using Netbird 100.190.x.x source)
Netbird Peer Site B to LAN A (Using Netbird 100.190.x.x source)

Cannot Ping from Peer A LAN to Peer B LAN (Using LAN IP source)
Cannot Ping from Peer B LAN to Peer A LAN (Using LAN IP source)

To Reproduce

Add 2 Peers
Add Resources
Add Resource to Routing Peer

Expected behavior

Should be able to route between LAN networks using 2 ore more routing peers

Self Hosted
netbird version 0.52.2
No Other VPN software

Can see packets going over wt0 tunnel but get dropped on routing peer before going into LAN network, If the source is a netbird 100.190.x.x address from either end packets are transferred normally.

Policy should be allowed to be created to allow LAN networks from 2 different peers to communicate. In some cases, it is impossible to install netbird on all machines and we must rely on routing peers to provide communication between 2 different networks

Tailscale has similar functionality:

https://tailscale.com/kb/1214/site-to-site

Originally created by @Ignattious on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025). **Describe the problem** 2 Peers Netbird A Netbird B Each peer / site has 1 LAN attached: A 10.1.100.0/24 B 10.1.101.0/24 Can ping between: Netbird Peer Site A to LAN B (Using Netbird 100.190.x.x source) Netbird Peer Site B to LAN A (Using Netbird 100.190.x.x source) Cannot Ping from Peer A LAN to Peer B LAN (Using LAN IP source) Cannot Ping from Peer B LAN to Peer A LAN (Using LAN IP source) **To Reproduce** Add 2 Peers Add Resources Add Resource to Routing Peer **Expected behavior** Should be able to route between LAN networks using 2 ore more routing peers Self Hosted netbird version 0.52.2 No Other VPN software Can see packets going over wt0 tunnel but get dropped on routing peer before going into LAN network, If the source is a netbird 100.190.x.x address from either end packets are transferred normally. Policy should be allowed to be created to allow LAN networks from 2 different peers to communicate. In some cases, it is impossible to install netbird on all machines and we must rely on routing peers to provide communication between 2 different networks Tailscale has similar functionality: https://tailscale.com/kb/1214/site-to-site
saavagebueno added the triage-needed label 2025-11-20 07:04:48 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:04:49 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025):

Netbird, to my knowledge, does not have this feature. You can publish a site to a client/group of clients, but not a site to site.

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025): Netbird, to my knowledge, does not have this feature. You can publish a site to a client/group of clients, but not a site to site.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:04:49 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stildalf commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025):

@Ignattious ,

Out of interest, are your A & B peers also the gateways for their relevant LANs?
(such as pfSense/OPNsense perhaps)

@stildalf commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025): @Ignattious , Out of interest, are your A & B peers also the gateways for their relevant LANs? (such as pfSense/OPNsense perhaps)
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:04:50 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nadieaqui commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025):

@Ignattious ,

Out of interest, are your A & B peers also the gateways for their relevant LANs? (such as pfSense/OPNsense perhaps)

@stildalf , I have the same problem, and A & B are the gateways for their relevant LANs for my scenario. Any insight would be appreciated. thank you.

@nadieaqui commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025): > [@Ignattious](https://github.com/Ignattious) , > > Out of interest, are your A & B peers also the gateways for their relevant LANs? (such as pfSense/OPNsense perhaps) @stildalf , I have the same problem, and A & B are the gateways for their relevant LANs for my scenario. Any insight would be appreciated. thank you.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:04:50 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@fre4ki commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025):

You have to set a static route on your default router for the other side and route it to your local netbird router.

i never tested this but for my understanding this should work.

Edit: but when i think about that, this is not the concept of ZTNA. How should policies checked when the user are unknown.

@fre4ki commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025): You have to set a static route on your default router for the other side and route it to your local netbird router. i never tested this but for my understanding this should work. Edit: but when i think about that, this is not the concept of ZTNA. How should policies checked when the user are unknown.
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 triage-needed
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#2150
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?