Egress route conflict with local network route

A common issue when using Egress Routes is a conflict between the remote network route and the user’s local network route. This usually happens when both networks use the same private IP range.

For example:

Network	Subnet
User’s local network	192.168.1.0/24
Remote network behind the egress gateway	192.168.1.0/24

In this case, the client machine cannot properly determine where traffic for 192.168.1.x should go. Most operating systems prioritize the local network route, causing traffic to stay on the local LAN instead of being sent through the egress gateway.

As a result:

• Remote resources become unreachable
• Routing behaves unpredictably
• Site-to-site and remote access connectivity may fail

How Netmaker Solves This

Netmaker solves overlapping subnet conflicts using Virtual NAT mode for Egress Routes.

With Virtual NAT enabled:

• The real remote subnet remains unchanged
• Netmaker assigns a unique virtual subnet for clients
• The egress node automatically translates traffic between the virtual and real IP ranges

Example

Actual Remote Network	Virtual NAT Range
192.168.1.0/24	198.19.10.0/24

Instead of accessing the remote network directly through 192.168.1.x, clients use the assigned virtual subnet. The egress gateway then handles the IP translation automatically.

This avoids conflicts with the user’s local routing table while maintaining seamless connectivity to remote resources.

Benefits

• Eliminates overlapping subnet conflicts
• No need to renumber existing networks
• Simplifies remote access deployments
• Supports multiple sites using identical private IP ranges

Conclusion

Egress Route conflicts with local network routes are common in environments where overlapping private IP ranges exist. By using Virtual NAT mode, Netmaker allows clients to access remote networks reliably without changing existing infrastructure or creating complex manual NAT rules.