SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-09 17:02:09 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

VPN on-demant activation for mobile clients #759

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:17:03 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:17:03 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @pax0707 on GitHub (Apr 1, 2024).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Prevent activation of VPN while connected to the local environment.

Describe the solution you'd like
Implement on-demand VPN activation with the option to exclude WiFi networks at locations that Netbird clients already cover to prevent unnecessary network overhead.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Manually enabling/disabling the VPN is tiresome, especially for other, less technically inclined users.

Additional context
Wireguard client (and some other wireguard-based solutions) already support this option.

Originally created by @pax0707 on GitHub (Apr 1, 2024). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Prevent activation of VPN while connected to the local environment. **Describe the solution you'd like** Implement on-demand VPN activation with the option to exclude WiFi networks at locations that Netbird clients already cover to prevent unnecessary network overhead. **Describe alternatives you've considered** Manually enabling/disabling the VPN is tiresome, especially for other, less technically inclined users. **Additional context** Wireguard client (and some other wireguard-based solutions) already support this option.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 05:17:03 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:17:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@braginini commented on GitHub (Apr 1, 2024):

Hi @pax0707
What kind of network overhead are you experiencing?
Do you use network routes feature?

@braginini commented on GitHub (Apr 1, 2024): Hi @pax0707 What kind of network overhead are you experiencing? Do you use network routes feature?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:17:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@aho-amiblu commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2024):

Hi, if I may add a comment here:
In our corporate network we have a ton of subnets that is routed quite efficiently via the local "default gateway".
If we deploy routes via the "network routes" feature, they will always be prefered, so all the traffic is running via that routing peer, instead of the (more efficent) direct way.
So it would be nice if those network routes are only active if they cannot be reached directly.

@aho-amiblu commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2024): Hi, if I may add a comment here: In our corporate network we have a ton of subnets that is routed quite efficiently via the local "default gateway". If we deploy routes via the "network routes" feature, they will always be prefered, so all the traffic is running via that routing peer, instead of the (more efficent) direct way. So it would be nice if those network routes are only active if they cannot be reached directly.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:17:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@braginini commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2024):

Hi, if I may add a comment here: In our corporate network we have a ton of subnets that is routed quite efficiently via the local "default gateway". If we deploy routes via the "network routes" feature, they will always be prefered, so all the traffic is running via that routing peer, instead of the (more efficent) direct way. So it would be nice if those network routes are only active if they cannot be reached directly.

Thank you for sharing your case @aho-amiblu.
You might be able to achieve the suggested behaviour by using posture checks. You can create one that is blocking access when peer is connected to a specific network (peer network range check) and add it to a policy that allows access to your routing peers. Once the client is in the network with more efficient routes, the posture check will remove access to that routing peer and therefore the NetBird route.

@braginini commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2024): > Hi, if I may add a comment here: In our corporate network we have a ton of subnets that is routed quite efficiently via the local "default gateway". If we deploy routes via the "network routes" feature, they will always be prefered, so all the traffic is running via that routing peer, instead of the (more efficent) direct way. So it would be nice if those network routes are only active if they cannot be reached directly. Thank you for sharing your case @aho-amiblu. You might be able to achieve the suggested behaviour by using posture checks. You can create one that is blocking access when peer is connected to a specific network (peer network range check) and add it to a policy that allows access to your routing peers. Once the client is in the network with more efficient routes, the posture check will remove access to that routing peer and therefore the NetBird route.
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#759
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?