SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-04-21 08:52:07 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

network route not working for subnetwork even if it should have to work #321

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 05:09:33 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 8 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:33 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lfarkas on GitHub (May 8, 2023).

The network routes is a very nice feature in netbird, but one of my current topology it's not working.
I've 2 network, let it be office and home:

  • office 192.168.0.0/16
  • home 192.168.253/24

I've one client (actually more but let's make it more simple) in each network and i'd like route through these client from each network to the other. This normally works (eg with openvpn) and it's works even with netbird,
BUT do not work if i set both routes in https://app.netbird.io/routes and try to advertise them through netbird.

The reason is simple from the log:

2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/peer/conn.go:348: connected to peer gsrpCbJwc8lkmNV783rxIHpyj+zZIhy/rFj5HsfVuBY= [laddr <-> raddr] [192.168.209.150:51820 <-> 192.168.209.1:38584]
2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/routemanager/client.go:111: new chosen route is chccqaat2r9s73b1k4q0 with peer gsrpCbJwc8lkmNV783rxIHpyj+zZIhy/rFj5HsfVuBY= with score 11
2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/systemops_nonandroid.go:27: skipping adding a new route for network 192.168.253.0/24 because it already exists and is pointing to the non default gateway: 192.168.209.150

it seems that netbird see something similar route in the local routing table and skip this, which is a bug. in linux (any any other os) the routing decision is working in a way that always try to choose the smallest network which contains the given destination. so in this case there can be 2 orverlapping route in the routing table the os always choose the smallest one eg. with this routing table:

192.168.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     100    0        0 enp2s0
192.168.253.0     100.76.24.179   255.255.255.0     UG    0      0        0 wt0

the host 192.168.253.2 should have to route through wt0.

The strange thing is that the opposite works in the other side of the network. ie. routeing from home to office has this routing table:

0.0.0.0         192.168.253.1   0.0.0.0         UG    100    0        0 enp6s0
100.76.0.0      0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0 wt0
192.168.0.0     100.76.24.179   255.255.0.0     UG    0      0        0 wt0
192.168.253.0   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     100    0        0 enp6s0

and in the log:

2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/peer/conn.go:348: connected to peer hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0= [laddr <-> raddr] [192.168.253.9:51820 <-> 185.199.30.141:2563]
2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/routemanager/client.go:111: new chosen route is cgva4m2t2r9s73c4r8tg with peer hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0= with score 11

so when the remote is overlapping BUT larger then the routing rule is added.

Originally created by @lfarkas on GitHub (May 8, 2023). The network routes is a very nice feature in netbird, but one of my current topology it's not working. I've 2 network, let it be office and home: - office 192.168.0.0/16 - home 192.168.253/24 I've one client (actually more but let's make it more simple) in each network and i'd like route through these client from each network to the other. This normally works (eg with openvpn) and it's works even with netbird, BUT do not work if i set both routes in https://app.netbird.io/routes and try to advertise them through netbird. The reason is simple from the log: ``` 2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/peer/conn.go:348: connected to peer gsrpCbJwc8lkmNV783rxIHpyj+zZIhy/rFj5HsfVuBY= [laddr <-> raddr] [192.168.209.150:51820 <-> 192.168.209.1:38584] 2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/routemanager/client.go:111: new chosen route is chccqaat2r9s73b1k4q0 with peer gsrpCbJwc8lkmNV783rxIHpyj+zZIhy/rFj5HsfVuBY= with score 11 2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/systemops_nonandroid.go:27: skipping adding a new route for network 192.168.253.0/24 because it already exists and is pointing to the non default gateway: 192.168.209.150 ``` it seems that netbird see something similar route in the local routing table and skip this, which is a bug. in linux (any any other os) the routing decision is working in a way that always try to choose the smallest network which contains the given destination. so in this case there can be 2 orverlapping route in the routing table the os always choose the smallest one eg. with this routing table: ``` 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 100 0 0 enp2s0 192.168.253.0 100.76.24.179 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 wt0 ``` the host 192.168.253.2 should have to route through wt0. The strange thing is that the opposite works in the other side of the network. ie. routeing from home to office has this routing table: ``` 0.0.0.0 192.168.253.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 enp6s0 100.76.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 wt0 192.168.0.0 100.76.24.179 255.255.0.0 UG 0 0 0 wt0 192.168.253.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 100 0 0 enp6s0 ``` and in the log: ``` 2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/peer/conn.go:348: connected to peer hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0= [laddr <-> raddr] [192.168.253.9:51820 <-> 185.199.30.141:2563] 2023-05-08T12:50:55+02:00 INFO client/internal/routemanager/client.go:111: new chosen route is cgva4m2t2r9s73c4r8tg with peer hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0= with score 11 ``` so when the remote is overlapping BUT larger then the routing rule is added.
saavagebueno added the waiting-feedback label 2025-11-20 05:09:33 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023):

The PR #945 fixes it and it will be available in the next release.

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023): The PR #945 fixes it and it will be available in the next release.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2023):

i already reconfigure all of our networks so i can't test it now. but let's assume working if not i'll write a new issue.

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2023): i already reconfigure all of our networks so i can't test it now. but let's assume working if not i'll write a new issue.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023):

this is not working again in the latest release netbird-0.24.2-1.x86_64.
i'm just now connected to a wifi network where the local ip address is:

wlo1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.0.185  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.0.255

ad the same time one of my network which should have to be routed is:
192.168.0.0/16
so the peer's route should have to be added, but in the log i can see this:

2023-10-28T11:17:58+02:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/client.go:119: the network 192.168.0.0/16 has not been assigned a routing peer as no peers from the list [FfiyZKMquYILabBxOquw/jXEuTjhBq6tUvBEPdV3ckY= hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0=] are currently connected

imho it's the same bug as earlier so it seems still not solved.

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023): this is not working again in the latest release netbird-0.24.2-1.x86_64. i'm just now connected to a wifi network where the local ip address is: ``` wlo1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.0.185 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255 ``` ad the same time one of my network which should have to be routed is: `192.168.0.0/16` so the peer's route should have to be added, but in the log i can see this: ``` 2023-10-28T11:17:58+02:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/client.go:119: the network 192.168.0.0/16 has not been assigned a routing peer as no peers from the list [FfiyZKMquYILabBxOquw/jXEuTjhBq6tUvBEPdV3ckY= hCDjKQBW9TBwsZigTRXxvVzpAYE+ZqDHBol4sOSUMl0=] are currently connected ``` imho it's the same bug as earlier so it seems still not solved.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2023):

Hello @lfarkas can you run the client with debug logs?

You can do that by running the following commands:

sudo netbird service stop
sudo netbird up -F -l debug | tee /tmp/netbird.debug.log

After running for 60s you can share the logs for us to check them.

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2023): Hello @lfarkas can you run the client with debug logs? You can do that by running the following commands: ```shell sudo netbird service stop sudo netbird up -F -l debug | tee /tmp/netbird.debug.log ``` After running for 60s you can share the logs for us to check them.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Oct 30, 2023):

netbird.log

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Oct 30, 2023): [netbird.log](https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/files/13208276/netbird.log)
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023):

do you need any further info?

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023): do you need any further info?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023):

Hello, @lfarkas the issue happened because the default gateway of your local network is 192.168.0.1, which is part of the 192.168.0.0/16 network. See the log event below:

2023-10-30T18:46:59+01:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/systemops_nonandroid.go:24: skipping adding a new route for network 192.168.0.0/16 because it overlaps with the default gateway: 192.168.0.1

This shouldn't happen as the local network is smaller. We will update the logic to prevent this case. Thanks for the logs.

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023): Hello, @lfarkas the issue happened because the default gateway of your local network is 192.168.0.1, which is part of the `192.168.0.0/16` network. See the log event below: ``` 2023-10-30T18:46:59+01:00 WARN client/internal/routemanager/systemops_nonandroid.go:24: skipping adding a new route for network 192.168.0.0/16 because it overlaps with the default gateway: 192.168.0.1 ``` This shouldn't happen as the local network is smaller. We will update the logic to prevent this case. Thanks for the logs.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:09:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Nov 24, 2023):

work in 24.3

@lfarkas commented on GitHub (Nov 24, 2023): work in 24.3
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 waiting-feedback
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#321
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?