SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-08-04 19:55:09 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

check latency to remote peers with same routing - so client peer is sent to the best remote peer based on actual ISP network conditions #620

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:14:46 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 1 comment
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:14:46 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @felixn-unity on GitHub (Feb 9, 2024).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When having multiple peers in GEO regions advertising the same routes, the client peer will connect to any of the peers in random/first-in-list (not sure how it is selected)

This can end up in client peer connecting to remote peer in another GEO region, meaning not optimal performance.

Describe the solution you'd like
Measure the latency from the client peer to all of the remote peers having the remote route being requested

Describe alternatives you've considered
We could maybe have user distribution based on users, so client peer region and in that way is sent to the "correct/best" region

Additional context
No additional contect

Originally created by @felixn-unity on GitHub (Feb 9, 2024). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** When having multiple peers in GEO regions advertising the same routes, the client peer will connect to any of the peers in random/first-in-list (not sure how it is selected) This can end up in client peer connecting to remote peer in another GEO region, meaning not optimal performance. **Describe the solution you'd like** Measure the latency from the client peer to all of the remote peers having the remote route being requested **Describe alternatives you've considered** We could maybe have user distribution based on users, so client peer region and in that way is sent to the "correct/best" region **Additional context** No additional contect
saavagebueno added the feature-requestclientroutes labels 2025-11-20 05:14:46 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:14:47 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

@felixn-unity @pascal-fischer I believe this is already handled and can be closed?

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2025): @felixn-unity @pascal-fischer I believe this is already handled and can be closed?
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 client feature-request routes
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#620
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?