[Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Discuss newly added features or request new features.
Post Reply
Uskdara
Posts: 4
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 23:42

[Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by Uskdara » 06 Jan 2015, 23:50

I'd like a setting to lock NZBGet to a Network Interface similar to how qBittorrent allows locking onto a Network Interface. In qBittorrent's Advanced Settings is a list of Network Interfaces on your computer and you can select one to bind to. This works even if the IP of the interface changes. It also has the added functionality that if the interface goes down, the client won't pick whatever interface is available and will instead stop binding to any interface (this is the behavior I desire).

A use case to have NZBGet only connect through a VPN. If I could lock it to a Network Interface like qBittorrent does then it would only ever connect through the VPN when it is up.

hugbug
Developer & Admin
Posts: 6701
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 11:58
Location: Germany (NRW)

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by hugbug » 07 Jan 2015, 12:01

Can't this be achieved with network management software (iptables or similar)?
What OS?

Uskdara
Posts: 4
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 23:42

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by Uskdara » 07 Jan 2015, 19:02

hugbug wrote:Can't this be achieved with network management software (iptables or similar)?
What OS?
Thank you for the reply. I use Windows 8. I don't know of software for my OS that can do this. I was very happy to see the feature in qBittorrent, and it's available in Vuze as well. It adds a significant safety layer to VPN users because the software will surely cease network activity if there's a disconnect.

http://wiki.vuze.com/w/UG_Options#Advan ... k_Settings

*EDIT* I searched for software that might offer this functionality, but the only one I found was quite old and its DLL injection does not work with NZBGet. http://mywindows8.org/bind-programs-to- ... windows-8/

hugbug
Developer & Admin
Posts: 6701
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 11:58
Location: Germany (NRW)

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by hugbug » 07 Jan 2015, 22:14

Have you tried standard command "route"?

Uskdara
Posts: 4
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 23:42

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by Uskdara » 08 Jan 2015, 00:23

hugbug wrote:Have you tried standard command "route"?
I think it might be possible using route if I look-up all the DNS entries for the news server and try routing all traffic to the servers through the VPN IP. This would stop working if the DNS entries or servers ever changed, and it's a bit of a workaround since using an application option would work for all servers. Does the architecture of NZBGet not support modifying the binding procedure?

hugbug
Developer & Admin
Posts: 6701
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 11:58
Location: Germany (NRW)

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by hugbug » 08 Jan 2015, 06:18

I believe "route" supports dns names too.

s4zando
Posts: 1
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 19:38

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by s4zando » 20 Feb 2017, 19:44

+1 for this feature request.

I also make use this same feature in qBit.

It certainly would be nice to be able to direct download traffic thru a specific interface without having to mess around with routing and iptables (which are then subject to possible/eventual changes in DNS, ip addresses, etc.).

It would also be nice to have the traffic cease flowing if/when interface goes down, and auto-continue if/when interface goes back up.

(As an aside (I have to admit I've done no research on this, but), I don't believe that SABNZBd can do this due to limitations in it's dev platform. This feature would certainly be a good differentiator between nzbget and SABNZBd.)

Thanks much!

./s4z

*OSes are Ubuntu and Rasperian

hugbug
Developer & Admin
Posts: 6701
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 11:58
Location: Germany (NRW)

Re: [Feature Request] Network Interface Setting for VPNs

Post by hugbug » 21 Feb 2017, 20:08

What's wrong with system tools like route and iptables? I don't consider them workarounds. They built for that purpose actually.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest