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

LAN conections are relayed while using network routes #996

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @krishne35 on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024).

Describe the problem
Im trying to expose ip range 10.0.0.0/16 on a linux machine running arch with netbird the problem is when i do expose it and assgin a peer to the said route it will not connect to the peer directly insted its relayed while im connected to wifi (LAN) which resulting is hight bandwidth usage

To Reproduce
Create two peers one on linux and one on android
route ip range 10.0.0.0/16 adn assign it to Android peer and try to access the ip while conected to Same network
it will be relayed insted of direct connection
Expected behavior
connect to peer directly when on same lan

Are you using NetBird Cloud?
Im using default Management

NetBird version

Linux: 0.28.0
Android: 0.27.9

Originally created by @krishne35 on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024). **Describe the problem** Im trying to expose ip range 10.0.0.0/16 on a linux machine running arch with netbird the problem is when i do expose it and assgin a peer to the said route it will not connect to the peer directly insted its relayed while im connected to wifi (LAN) which resulting is hight bandwidth usage **To Reproduce** Create two peers one on linux and one on android route ip range 10.0.0.0/16 adn assign it to Android peer and try to access the ip while conected to Same network it will be relayed insted of direct connection **Expected behavior** connect to peer directly when on same lan **Are you using NetBird Cloud?** Im using default Management **NetBird version** Linux: 0.28.0 Android: 0.27.9
saavagebueno added the feature-requestclientroutes labels 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Hi @krishne35,
this is how the system works at the moment. You can disable the route on your peer manually so it will not route traffic when you are in the office and switch it back on when you leave. We will see what we can for the client to detect that by itself and not route while on the same lan.

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Hi @krishne35, this is how the system works at the moment. You can disable the route on your peer manually so it will not route traffic when you are in the office and switch it back on when you leave. We will see what we can for the client to detect that by itself and not route while on the same lan.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@krishne35 commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Well we can't do that on android client sadly
One option would be to allow lan implementation of tailscale

@krishne35 commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Well we can't do that on android client sadly One option would be to allow lan implementation of tailscale
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:20 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Ah true, android does not implement this yet. Another option that might work for the time being is using posture checks. If you have the policy to access the exit node you can set up the ip range posture check to not allow connection to the exit node this way the route will not be assigned as the routing peer is offline. As the routing peer should also be on the local lan and is therefore accessible this might be an option for you?

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Ah true, android does not implement this yet. Another option that might work for the time being is using posture checks. If you have the policy to access the exit node you can set up the ip range posture check to not allow connection to the exit node this way the route will not be assigned as the routing peer is offline. As the routing peer should also be on the local lan and is therefore accessible this might be an option for you?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:21 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@krishne35 commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

that way beyond my skill set xd ill wait from some toggle xd
also there is atleast 5 devices that will be using it so this trick might not work seemlessly
i guess ill stick to tailscale for now and keep an eye here

@krishne35 commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): that way beyond my skill set xd ill wait from some toggle xd also there is atleast 5 devices that will be using it so this trick might not work seemlessly i guess ill stick to tailscale for now and keep an eye here
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#996
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?