starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add VPN Support/IPSec Phase 2 encryption domains #100

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:32:49 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:49 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @troxil on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016).

I have quite a lot of different IPSec tunnels leaving our environment and wish to be able to manage the different encryption domains properly.

Not all of the tunnels are using VTI addressing within the virtual device.

Short of considering this a circuit and terminating on a virtual tunnel, which is not supported (circuits only on physical interface) - I'm not sure if this available already.

Originally created by @troxil on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016). I have quite a lot of different IPSec tunnels leaving our environment and wish to be able to manage the different encryption domains properly. Not all of the tunnels are using VTI addressing within the virtual device. Short of considering this a circuit and terminating on a virtual tunnel, which is not supported (circuits only on physical interface) - I'm not sure if this available already.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:32:49 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Zmegolaz commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016):

I'd like something like this too, a P2P Circuit. We have some CCC and dark fibers where a port on a device at site A is directly connected to a port on site B. One circuit terminated in two places. #130 is similar to this.

One alternative is to allow regular device connections across different sites.

@Zmegolaz commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016): I'd like something like this too, a P2P Circuit. We have some CCC and dark fibers where a port on a device at site A is directly connected to a port on site B. One circuit terminated in two places. #130 is similar to this. One alternative is to allow regular device connections across different sites.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2016):

Circuits are intended only to represent physical connections. I definitely wouldn't try to use them for VPN tunnels.

A VPN tunnel is a pretty abstract concept, and probably delves too far into the realm of configuration management to be applicable to NetBox.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2016): Circuits are intended only to represent physical connections. I definitely wouldn't try to use them for VPN tunnels. A VPN tunnel is a pretty abstract concept, and probably delves too far into the realm of configuration management to be applicable to NetBox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wmclendon commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2016):

i'm not sure if it is verboten to comment on closed issues, but I think having an option to define a circuit as type VPN and tie them to a virtual interface / subinterface would be very useful. Beyond IPSec VPNs this could apply to L2 Circuits, GRE Tunnels, etc. I think there might be a way at least for now to encode most of the important information (for us, anyway) in some of the circuit fields that exist today (ie Tunnel interface as the Circuit ID, far-side 3rd party in comment, or something).

@wmclendon commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2016): i'm not sure if it is verboten to comment on closed issues, but I think having an option to define a circuit as type VPN and tie them to a virtual interface / subinterface would be very useful. Beyond IPSec VPNs this could apply to L2 Circuits, GRE Tunnels, etc. I think there might be a way at least for now to encode most of the important information (for us, anyway) in some of the circuit fields that exist today (ie Tunnel interface as the Circuit ID, far-side 3rd party in comment, or something).
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2016):

Circuits are physical resources; tunnels are not. An IPsec VPN does not have a provider, port speed, commit rate, etc. It wouldn't make sense to use the Circuit model for this purpose.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2016): Circuits are physical resources; tunnels are not. An IPsec VPN does not have a provider, port speed, commit rate, etc. It wouldn't make sense to use the Circuit model for this purpose.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#100
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?