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

Create prefix within container automatically #10282

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:29:24 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:24 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ya-cha on GitHub (Sep 24, 2024).

NetBox version

v.4.0.10

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

When creating a prefix in other prefixes, Netbox is looking for the next available. This happens in the user interface /ipam/prefixes/add/?prefix={id} and in the API /api/ipam/prefixes/{id}/available-prefixes/.
If there are child prefixes with the status container, I would expect those containers to be used when finding the next free one (so creating a prefix inside the container inside the given prefix).

Use case

For internal purposes (rDNS) the prefix used for our customers is divided in multiple containers. The Netbox considers it as completely full. In our understanding the purpose of containers is not to block prefixes but to group them. I would expect the Netbox to create a prefix in the container.

Database changes

To prevent breaking changes this behaviour could be managed in a feature flag. This would be a DB change

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @ya-cha on GitHub (Sep 24, 2024). ### NetBox version v.4.0.10 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality When creating a prefix in other prefixes, Netbox is looking for the next available. This happens in the user interface `/ipam/prefixes/add/?prefix={id}` and in the API `/api/ipam/prefixes/{id}/available-prefixes/`. If there are child prefixes with the status `container`, I would expect those containers to be used when finding the next free one (so creating a prefix inside the container inside the given prefix). ### Use case For internal purposes (rDNS) the prefix used for our customers is divided in multiple containers. The Netbox considers it as completely full. In our understanding the purpose of containers is not to block prefixes but to group them. I would expect the Netbox to create a prefix in the container. ### Database changes To prevent breaking changes this behaviour could be managed in a feature flag. This would be a DB change ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurenetbox labels 2025-12-29 21:29:24 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:29:24 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:29:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I would expect those containers to be used when finding the next free one (so creating a prefix inside the container inside the given prefix).

This would defeat the intended purpose of designating containers, which is to allocate a specific portion of the parent IP space for a particular use. When automatically allocating available IP space, the user should specify the intended containing prefix.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2025): > I would expect those containers to be used when finding the next free one (so creating a prefix inside the container inside the given prefix). This would defeat the intended purpose of designating containers, which is to allocate a specific portion of the parent IP space for a particular use. When automatically allocating available IP space, the user should specify the intended containing prefix.
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 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#10282
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?