Skip to content

Forward UDP 443 for QUIC in external relay setup - #946

Open
0xMudit wants to merge 1 commit into
netbirdio:mainfrom
0xMudit:fix/relay-quic-udp-443
Open

Forward UDP 443 for QUIC in external relay setup#946
0xMudit wants to merge 1 commit into
netbirdio:mainfrom
0xMudit:fix/relay-quic-udp-443

Conversation

@0xMudit

@0xMudit 0xMudit commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Fixes the issue reported in netbirdio/netbird#6235

The relay serves WebSocket and QUIC on the same port (default :443). The relay code in netbirdio/netbird starts both listeners on that address: a TCP listener for WebSocket and a QUIC listener over UDP (relay/server/server.go). Docker only forwards TCP unless a port mapping carries the /udp suffix, so the compose example on this page silently disabled QUIC for external relays.

Changes:

  • Add '443:443/udp' to the docker-compose example
  • List 443/udp alongside 443/tcp in the firewall requirements

Question while I was here: high-availability.mdx also publishes relay traffic as 443:443 behind a load balancer. If QUIC is wanted there too, that deployment needs UDP forwarding through the LB as well, so I left it out of this change.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Updated the external relay setup guide to include UDP port 443 for QUIC.
    • Updated the Docker Compose example to expose port 443 for both TCP and UDP traffic.
    • Added explanations for WebSocket, QUIC, and Docker port forwarding requirements.

The relay serves WebSocket (TCP) and QUIC (UDP) on port 443. Without
the /udp suffix, Docker only forwards TCP, so QUIC never reaches the
relay container.
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Mudityadev is attempting to deploy a commit to the NetBird GmbH Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: a68827a7-7619-45ba-84e1-66beedf511b0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d905fda and a7ba2ad.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/pages/selfhosted/maintenance/scaling/set-up-external-relays.mdx

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.


📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The external relay setup guide now includes UDP port 443 for QUIC. Its Docker Compose example maps port 443 for both TCP WebSocket traffic and UDP QUIC traffic.

Changes

External relay QUIC setup

Layer / File(s) Summary
Document WebSocket and QUIC ports
src/pages/selfhosted/maintenance/scaling/set-up-external-relays.mdx
The firewall requirements include 443/udp. The Docker Compose example maps 443:443 for TCP and 443:443/udp for QUIC, with explanatory comments.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to a7ba2

This localized documentation update adds the required UDP forwarding guidance for external relay deployments, and no actionable merge-blocking risk remains.

Poem

I’m a rabbit by the relay door,
Hopping where the packets pour.
TCP knocks, and QUIC arrives,
UDP keeps the tunnel alive.
Port four-four-three now serves them all—
I nibble docs beside the wall.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and concisely describes the main documentation change: forwarding UDP port 443 for QUIC in the external relay setup.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1
🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
  • Create stacked PR
  • Commit on current branch
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Warning

Some tools did not complete. Review the errors below.

🔧 ESLint

If the error stems from missing dependencies, add them to the package.json file. For unrecoverable errors (e.g., due to private dependencies), disable the tool in the CodeRabbit configuration.

src/pages/selfhosted/maintenance/scaling/set-up-external-relays.mdx

typescript-eslint does not support TS 7.0.
Please see https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-7-0/#running-side-by-side-with-typescript-6.0 to run typescript-eslint using the TS 6 API.
See also typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint#10940 for tracking typescript-eslint's support for TS >=7.1

Oops! Something went wrong! :(

ESLint: 9.39.5

Error: typescript-eslint does not support TS 7.0.
at Object. (/node_modules/typescript-eslint/dist/index.js:52:11)
at Module._compile (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1830:14)
at Object..js (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1961:10)
at Module.load (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1553:32)
at Module._load (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1355:12)
at wrapModuleLoad (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:255:19)
at Module.require (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1576:12)
at require (node:internal/modules/helpers:153:16)
at Object. (/node_modules/eslint-config-next/dist/index.js:5:64)
at Module._compile (node:internal/modules/cjs/loader:1830:14)


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants