innernet
v2.0.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on innernet's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
innernet is a private network system that uses WireGuardWireGuardA modern VPN protocol and Linux kernel module, maintained as an open-source project, that establishes encrypted tunnels using minimal code and fast cryptography, giving cyber tools a lightweight, high-performance transport layer. under the hood to manage peers and control access using CIDRs.
sudo innernet-server serve <interface> --host-suffix corp.example sudo innernet --verbose list <interface> sudo innernet override-endpoint <interface> cargo install innernet innernet-server disable-peer <peer_public_key> innernet-server enable-peer <peer_public_key> innernet --mtu 9000 capsh --caps="cap_net_admin+eip" -- -c "innernet list-cidrs" inn delete-cidr <network> inn list -s inn list -t innernet --verbose innernet-server add-peer evilcorp --name 'admin' --cidr 'humans' --admin true --auto-ip --save-config 'peer1.toml' --yes innernet-server new --network-name 'evilcorp' --network-cidr '10.66.0.0/16' --external-endpoint 'innernet-server.evilcorp.com:51820' --listen-port 51820 innernet-server install --no-write-hosts innernet-client add --hosts-path /etc/alternatives/hosts
Summary
innernet is an open-source private networking system, built on WireGuard, that turns a group of machines into an access-controlled overlay network using CIDRs as its permission model, and it is free to use under the MIT license. It runs as a command-line tool: a coordination server (innernet-server) manages peers and endpoint discovery, while a client on each machine joins the network and can be installed directly via cargo. It suits infrastructure and platform engineers building internal zero-trust networks rather than end users wanting a turnkey VPNVPNA virtual private network, an encrypted tunnel between devices or networks. It carries traffic across another network as though the endpoints had a private connection.. Its README places it alongside Nebula and Tailscale, though it leans more heavily on native CIDRCIDRA notation for a block of IP addresses, such as 10.0.0.0/24. The number after the slash says how many leading address bits identify the network. structures for ACLsACLsAn access control list, a set of rules allowing or denying operations for particular users, services or network addresses. It decides who can use a resource.; the maintainers also note it hasn't had an independent security audit and call it experimental. First committed in 2021, it has 44 contributors and a release 50 days ago, suggesting active upkeep.
innernet is a private network system that uses WireGuard under the hood to manage peers and control access using CIDRs.
How innernet helps
Which machines on this network are allowed to talk to which others?
enforces reachability by CIDR membership rather than a flat peer list, so a machine's group assignment is what determines who it can reach
Can a new server reach the rest of the network without me hand-configuring routes?
the coordination server tracks peer endpoints and hands them out so peers can establish direct WireGuard connections without manual setup
Which peer is behind a given hostname when I'm debugging a connection?
writes peer-to-hostname mappings so machines can be addressed by name instead of tracking IPs by hand
How do I reach a peer that sits behind a NAT or load balancer?
lets you pin that peer's advertised endpoint manually so others connect to the correct address instead of relying on discovery
Is this key I'm looking at in a log actually the peer I think it is?
can print the full WireGuard public key instead of a truncated version, so ambiguous short keys can be confirmed against the real one
Can I shut off one compromised or retired machine without tearing down the whole network?
supports enabling or disabling individual peers directly, cutting their access while leaving the rest of the CIDR intact
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for innernet, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail innernet puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
12 entries
No entries match these filters.
- July 20261
- August 20251
- September 20221
- March 20221
- December 20211
- September 20211
- July 20211
- May 20212
- April 20213
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in tonarino/innernet, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 8 −1 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +1 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 2 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 83% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 681 days first maintainer reply 20 hours
- Open backlog 81 of 220 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 81
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 5,551
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.