SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-07-01 11:42:00 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

IPv6 support for peer IPs #2207

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 07:05:50 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:05:50 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Darin755 on GitHub (Aug 19, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Right now it only seems possible to use IPv4 addresses for peers. However, it would be nice to be able to use IPv6 and the features that come with it. For instance it would be cool if you could assign a prefix to a group and then have devices use SLAAC or something equivalent to get an address. This might take some work to get working but it would be cool if devices could self assign an address but have permissions set by group membership.

IPv6 is also nice since the private space has 2^121 addresses which means that an address collision is very unlikely. (2^57 subnets)

Describe the solution you'd like
It would be nice if each group would get a private IPv6 prefix assigned to it. It would also be nice to just have IPv6 addresses available but I think the biggest advantage of IPv6 is the huge address space.

Describe alternatives you've considered
IPv4 does technically work so this is more of a quality of life.

Additional context
IPv6 is expanding in use and I think over time it is going to become very relevant to have.

Originally created by @Darin755 on GitHub (Aug 19, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Right now it only seems possible to use IPv4 addresses for peers. However, it would be nice to be able to use IPv6 and the features that come with it. For instance it would be cool if you could assign a prefix to a group and then have devices use SLAAC or something equivalent to get an address. This might take some work to get working but it would be cool if devices could self assign an address but have permissions set by group membership. IPv6 is also nice since the private space has 2^121 addresses which means that an address collision is very unlikely. (2^57 subnets) **Describe the solution you'd like** It would be nice if each group would get a private IPv6 prefix assigned to it. It would also be nice to just have IPv6 addresses available but I think the biggest advantage of IPv6 is the huge address space. **Describe alternatives you've considered** IPv4 does technically work so this is more of a quality of life. **Additional context** IPv6 is expanding in use and I think over time it is going to become very relevant to have.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 07:05:50 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:05:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@noradtux commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):

Also, using IPv6 in the underlay would be nice.

@noradtux commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025): Also, using IPv6 in the underlay would be nice.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:05:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):

I was about to close it as a duplicate of #46, but the idea about supporting SLAAC might be worth exploring at a point.

Currently, the management server randomly generates a unique IP address (serves as IPAM, which in turn serves same purpose as DHCP) and assigns it to the new Peer (identified by WG key) persistently. Recently, we have added:

  • a way to change the organization-wide IP address range (defaults to a random /16 from the CGNAT range)
  • a way to change the IP address of the Peer,

I don't think this will change with the introduction of internal IPv6 addressing. If you believe this mechanism solves your use case then please close this as a duplicate of #46

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025): I was about to close it as a duplicate of #46, but the idea about supporting SLAAC might be worth exploring at a point. Currently, the management server randomly generates a unique IP address (serves as IPAM, which in turn serves same purpose as DHCP) and assigns it to the new Peer (identified by WG key) persistently. Recently, we have added: - a way to change the organization-wide IP address range (defaults to a random `/16` from the CGNAT range) - a way to change the IP address of the Peer, I don't think this will change with the introduction of internal IPv6 addressing. If you believe this mechanism solves your use case then please close this as a duplicate of #46
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:05:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Darin755 commented on GitHub (Sep 2, 2025):

I think this is very similar to #46. I did do a search for IPv6 but I must of missed the preexisting issue.

@Darin755 commented on GitHub (Sep 2, 2025): I think this is very similar to #46. I did do a search for IPv6 but I must of missed the preexisting issue.
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 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#2207
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?