SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-10 02:02:26 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Expanding Access Control rules to support CIDR notations #504

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 05:12:39 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 2 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:12:39 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @n5ke on GitHub (Nov 8, 2023).

Hi, very nice project, thanks for making it opensource

Are there any thoughts about expanding the access control functionality to be able to include address definitions instead of just Netbird peers?

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

There are many situations where service hosts cannot or is not desirable to be joined as peers directly and would be accessed through a routing peer. Having support for Network Routes acknowledges this. Allowing to manage firewall rules between routing peers and other networks would allow for more granular control and flexibility in such scenarios.

Describe the solution you'd like

From a usability perspective I think the ideal would be to expand the notion of Groups to be able to encompass both peers and CIDR definitions, or create a new "External Resources" construct for this that can be sourced into the Access Control definitions the same way. It might also be convenient to allow defining lists of Services as Protocol/Port definitions and allow selecting these on the Access Control lists.

Describe alternatives you've considered
At the moment the only alternative way would be to either manually manage firewall rules on the routing netbird peer (probably unfeasible if there is no way of assigning fixed addresses to peers), or manually DNATing the desirable services on Netbird routing peers and control the access to them through the existing Netbird functionality -but that, aside from the lack of convenience, comes with its own issues.

Originally created by @n5ke on GitHub (Nov 8, 2023). Hi, very nice project, thanks for making it opensource Are there any thoughts about expanding the access control functionality to be able to include address definitions instead of just Netbird peers? **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** There are many situations where service hosts cannot or is not desirable to be joined as peers directly and would be accessed through a routing peer. Having support for Network Routes acknowledges this. Allowing to manage firewall rules between routing peers and other networks would allow for more granular control and flexibility in such scenarios. **Describe the solution you'd like** From a usability perspective I think the ideal would be to expand the notion of Groups to be able to encompass both peers and CIDR definitions, or create a new "External Resources" construct for this that can be sourced into the Access Control definitions the same way. It might also be convenient to allow defining lists of Services as Protocol/Port definitions and allow selecting these on the Access Control lists. **Describe alternatives you've considered** At the moment the only alternative way would be to either manually manage firewall rules on the routing netbird peer (probably unfeasible if there is no way of assigning fixed addresses to peers), or manually DNATing the desirable services on Netbird routing peers and control the access to them through the existing Netbird functionality -but that, aside from the lack of convenience, comes with its own issues.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:12:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2025):

@n5ke I believe this is already implemented in both Networks and Network Routes? I would appreciate confirmation and closing of this issue.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2025): @n5ke I believe this is already implemented in both Networks and Network Routes? I would appreciate confirmation and closing of this issue.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:12:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@n5ke commented on GitHub (May 17, 2025):

Hi @nazarewk apologies I just saw this, that's exactly what I was hoping for and then some, many thanks!

@n5ke commented on GitHub (May 17, 2025): Hi @nazarewk apologies I just saw this, that's exactly what I was hoping for and then some, many thanks!
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#504
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?