SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-03-31 06:34:19 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

access policies are not working on /32 routes #735

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:16:39 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:39 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ez1976 on GitHub (Mar 26, 2024).

Hello. question regarding Relays and access control
i have 3 linux machines configured as Relays. 2 in our on-prem and one in AWS
all 3 relays can communicate between them and all 3 of them can access all the networks and routes.
now i am trying to create a dedicated route to limit peers to access ONLY 4 machines with /32 in their route.
If i put the peer in the group that has access to the cidr that the relays are , then the remote peer can access anything he needs.
so i created 3 different routes for each relay with /32 in their CIDR and gave access to all the groups on the server.
then i created an access policy that gives all the groups access to those 3 relay route entries so they can still ping and communicate with them. (even gave it 50 in the prioriy)
but as soon as i put the peer inside the isolated group, he cant communicate with anyone (including the internal 100.X.X.X network). cannot ping the internal or real IP address of the relays. guessing if he cant access the relay, he cant access the remote route.

this is after putting the peer inside the isolated group:
[root@opencachehub ~]# netbird status -d
Peers detail:
Daemon version: 0.26.3
CLI version: 0.26.3
Management: Connected to https://connect.qwilt.com:33073/
Signal: Connected to http://connect.qwilt.com:10000/
Relays:
[stun:connect.qwilt.com:3478] is Available
[turn:connect.qwilt.com:3478?transport=udp] is Available
Nameservers:
[52.8.5.13:53, 10.66.25.96:53] for [.] is Available
FQDN: opencachehub.vpn.qwilt.com
NetBird IP: 100.120.178.106/16
Interface type: Userspace
Quantum resistance: false
Routes: -
Peers count: 0/0 Connected
[root@opencachehub ~]#

trying to ping the relay
[root@opencachehub ~]# ping 100.120.81.117
PING 100.120.81.117 (100.120.81.117) 56(84) bytes of data.
but after putting the peer inside the access policy that gives access to /24 of the network it works:
[root@opencachehub ~]# ping us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com
PING us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com (10.66.25.56) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.63 ms
64 bytes from us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.73 ms
64 bytes from us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.80 ms
^C
--- us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.636/1.727/1.809/0.085 ms
[root@opencachehub ~]# ping 100.120.81.117
PING 100.120.81.117 (100.120.81.117) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.79 ms
64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms
64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.82 ms
^C
--- 100.120.81.117 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.722/1.780/1.826/0.055 ms
[root@opencachehub ~]#

does access policies support /32 at all?
do i need to put the relay servers in a dedicated vlan and give the remote peers full access to that vlan?
and that vlan can access all the other networks on our internal network?

tried putting the relay peer group in the isolated group but still no access unless i give it access to the full /24 network

Originally created by @ez1976 on GitHub (Mar 26, 2024). Hello. question regarding Relays and access control i have 3 linux machines configured as Relays. 2 in our on-prem and one in AWS all 3 relays can communicate between them and all 3 of them can access all the networks and routes. now i am trying to create a dedicated route to limit peers to access ONLY 4 machines with /32 in their route. If i put the peer in the group that has access to the cidr that the relays are , then the remote peer can access anything he needs. so i created 3 different routes for each relay with /32 in their CIDR and gave access to all the groups on the server. then i created an access policy that gives all the groups access to those 3 relay route entries so they can still ping and communicate with them. (even gave it 50 in the prioriy) but as soon as i put the peer inside the isolated group, he cant communicate with anyone (including the internal 100.X.X.X network). cannot ping the internal or real IP address of the relays. guessing if he cant access the relay, he cant access the remote route. this is after putting the peer inside the isolated group: [root@opencachehub ~]# netbird status -d Peers detail: Daemon version: 0.26.3 CLI version: 0.26.3 Management: Connected to https://connect.qwilt.com:33073/ Signal: Connected to http://connect.qwilt.com:10000/ Relays: [stun:connect.qwilt.com:3478] is Available [turn:connect.qwilt.com:3478?transport=udp] is Available Nameservers: [52.8.5.13:53, 10.66.25.96:53] for [.] is Available FQDN: [opencachehub.vpn.qwilt.com](http://opencachehub.vpn.qwilt.com/) NetBird IP: 100.120.178.106/16 Interface type: Userspace Quantum resistance: false Routes: - Peers count: 0/0 Connected [root@opencachehub ~]# trying to ping the relay [root@opencachehub ~]# ping 100.120.81.117 PING 100.120.81.117 (100.120.81.117) 56(84) bytes of data. but after putting the peer inside the access policy that gives access to /24 of the network it works: [root@opencachehub ~]# ping [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) PING [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) (10.66.25.56) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.63 ms 64 bytes from [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.73 ms 64 bytes from [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) (10.66.25.56): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.80 ms ^C --- [us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com](http://us-w1-relay01.it.qwilt.com/) ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.636/1.727/1.809/0.085 ms [root@opencachehub ~]# ping 100.120.81.117 PING 100.120.81.117 (100.120.81.117) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.79 ms 64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.72 ms 64 bytes from 100.120.81.117: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.82 ms ^C --- 100.120.81.117 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.722/1.780/1.826/0.055 ms [root@opencachehub ~]# does access policies support /32 at all? do i need to put the relay servers in a dedicated vlan and give the remote peers full access to that vlan? and that vlan can access all the other networks on our internal network? tried putting the relay peer group in the isolated group but still no access unless i give it access to the full /24 network
saavagebueno added the waiting-feedbacktriage-needed labels 2025-11-20 05:16:39 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2024):

Hi @ez1976, I am not sure I can follow what is happening. So you have:

  • 3 peers (the relays)
  • 4 routes with /32 to route to 4 specific peers?
  • some policy assigned to a group that allows access to a /24 network where the relays are part of? How does that look like? Policies are group to group based or are you adding posture checks?
  • some isolated group. Whats the purpose of that group and how does it look and where is it used?

From the status output it looks like the peer in the isolated group can not communicate with any other peers because it shows Peers count: 0/0 Connected so it is not receiving any peers from management

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2024): Hi @ez1976, I am not sure I can follow what is happening. So you have: - 3 peers (the relays) - 4 routes with /32 to route to 4 specific peers? - some policy assigned to a group that allows access to a /24 network where the relays are part of? How does that look like? Policies are group to group based or are you adding posture checks? - some isolated group. Whats the purpose of that group and how does it look and where is it used? From the status output it looks like the peer in the isolated group can not communicate with any other peers because it shows `Peers count: 0/0 Connected` so it is not receiving any peers from management
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2025):

@ez1976 did you manage to resolve the problem or is it still an issue for you?

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2025): @ez1976 did you manage to resolve the problem or is it still an issue for you?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ez1976 commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025):

Yes it is all working.
Thank you

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, 10:31 Krzysztof Nazarewski (kdn) <
@.***> wrote:

@ez1976 https://github.com/ez1976 did you manage to resolve the problem
or is it still an issue for you?

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANTDD5M34CGS5CIZRFWZKT225MW5AVCNFSM6AAAAAB3V2OMLSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQMRTGY3TCNZRGM
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>
nazarewk left a comment (netbirdio/netbird#1750)
https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713

@ez1976 https://github.com/ez1976 did you manage to resolve the problem
or is it still an issue for you?

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANTDD5M34CGS5CIZRFWZKT225MW5AVCNFSM6AAAAAB3V2OMLSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQMRTGY3TCNZRGM
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>

@ez1976 commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025): Yes it is all working. Thank you On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, 10:31 Krzysztof Nazarewski (kdn) < ***@***.***> wrote: > @ez1976 <https://github.com/ez1976> did you manage to resolve the problem > or is it still an issue for you? > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANTDD5M34CGS5CIZRFWZKT225MW5AVCNFSM6AAAAAB3V2OMLSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQMRTGY3TCNZRGM> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> > *nazarewk* left a comment (netbirdio/netbird#1750) > <https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713> > > @ez1976 <https://github.com/ez1976> did you manage to resolve the problem > or is it still an issue for you? > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1750#issuecomment-2823671713>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANTDD5M34CGS5CIZRFWZKT225MW5AVCNFSM6AAAAAB3V2OMLSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQMRTGY3TCNZRGM> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> >
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 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#735
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?