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

Make IP range to be selectable when configuring interface IP address with DHCP status. #10256

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:29:02 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:02 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lopar on GitHub (Sep 17, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.1.0

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Make IP range to be selectable when configuring interface IP address. IP range should be selectable only if "DHCP" status is selected. Such DHCP interface ranges should count towards the utilization of the prefix/range. If you have a dynamic range 10.1.1.50 - 10.1.1.99, and you have assigned 25 interfaces to that range, the range should be treated as "50% used".

Of course static IP addresses from such range shoud be countable too. So, if you have a dynamic range 10.1.1.50 - 10.1.1.99, and you have assigned 20 interfaces as DHCP range and have also 5 static adresses from that range, the range should be treated as "50% used".

There should be additional system checks if IP range is already full:

  1. Addind new device to DHCP address pool when there are no place for it.
  2. Adding new static IP address to the range, when range don't have free slots.

Use case

It is common situation when devices in network are using DHCP leases from some IP pool, which adresses are not static, like wifi access points, virtual machines, etc, where static address is not an option, because it can be suddenly changed, making IPAM having wrong data.

I saw multiple discussions and issues about this situation without common answer, but different local situational workarounds. People need such functionality, it's not "one man issue".

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @lopar on GitHub (Sep 17, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.1.0 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Make IP range to be selectable when configuring interface IP address. IP range should be selectable only if "DHCP" status is selected. Such DHCP interface ranges should count towards the utilization of the prefix/range. If you have a dynamic range 10.1.1.50 - 10.1.1.99, and you have assigned 25 interfaces to that range, the range should be treated as "50% used". Of course static IP addresses from such range shoud be countable too. So, if you have a dynamic range 10.1.1.50 - 10.1.1.99, and you have assigned 20 interfaces as DHCP range and have also 5 static adresses from that range, the range should be treated as "50% used". There should be additional system checks if IP range is already full: 1. Addind new device to DHCP address pool when there are no place for it. 2. Adding new static IP address to the range, when range don't have free slots. ### Use case It is common situation when devices in network are using DHCP leases from some IP pool, which adresses are not static, like wifi access points, virtual machines, etc, where static address is not an option, because it can be suddenly changed, making IPAM having wrong data. I saw multiple discussions and issues about this situation without common answer, but different local situational workarounds. People need such functionality, it's not "one man issue". ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: revisions needednetbox labels 2025-12-29 21:29:02 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:29:02 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2025):

Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our contributing guide, a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2025): Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md), a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025):

This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2025): This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2025):

This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2025): This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.
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 netbox pending closure status: revisions needed type: feature
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#10256
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?