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 option to assign an FHRP group to a tunnel termination #10446

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:31:32 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dreng on GitHub (Nov 6, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.1.6

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Triage priority

N/A

Proposed functionality

In the "add a new tunnel" screen, please add an option "FHRP Group" to the first and second termination type. If selected, the following field (that switches between "Device" and "Virtual Machine") should change the Caption to "FHRP Group" and query FHRP Groups.

Use case

With a redundant tunnel hub, it does not reflect the reality that the termination must be assigned to a device. Instead, the termination should be assigned to a virtual interface which does not belong to a specific device but to a FHRP Group.

Database changes

Not sure

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @dreng on GitHub (Nov 6, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.1.6 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Triage priority N/A ### Proposed functionality In the "add a new tunnel" screen, please add an option "FHRP Group" to the first and second termination type. If selected, the following field (that switches between "Device" and "Virtual Machine") should change the Caption to "FHRP Group" and query FHRP Groups. ### Use case With a redundant tunnel hub, it does not reflect the reality that the termination must be assigned to a device. Instead, the termination should be assigned to a virtual interface which does not belong to a specific device but to a FHRP Group. ### Database changes Not sure ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under reviewcomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:31:32 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:31:32 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wlnx commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025):

I'd like to point out that in fact a tunnel termination point is not an interface but an IP address (or even an IP address set).

@wlnx commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025): I'd like to point out that in fact a tunnel termination point is not an interface but an IP address (or even an IP address set).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025):

Yeah, I don't see how this is intended to work. Tunnels must terminate to interfaces.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025): Yeah, I don't see how this is intended to work. Tunnels must terminate to interfaces.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wlnx commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2025):

Yeah, I don't see how this is intended to work. Tunnels must terminate to interfaces.

Uhm, sorry. I've read some discussions and discovered that virtual interfaces should be created for tunnels to terminate. That's OK (IPsec tunnels don't seem to be OK, but let's leave them alone). Anyway, I found no option to create a virtual interface on top of FHRP. Maybe, I missed something, could you show me the way, please?
Thank you.

@wlnx commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2025): > Yeah, I don't see how this is intended to work. Tunnels must terminate to interfaces. Uhm, sorry. I've read some discussions and discovered that virtual interfaces should be created for tunnels to terminate. That's OK (IPsec tunnels don't seem to be OK, but let's leave them alone). Anyway, I found no option to create a virtual interface on top of FHRP. Maybe, I missed something, could you show me the way, please? Thank you.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dreng commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025):

Tunnels must terminate to interfaces.

I agree. But in an active/passive configuration, how would you suggest to document such networks? Let's say, wie have two routers in an active/passive HA cluster, R1 and R2. In the current situation, you have to define the tunnel termination to an interface of just one of this devices, let's say tun0 of R1. If R1 fails, R2 becomes active automatically, which means that the tunnel termination switches to tun0 of R2. This situation lets the documented state in NetBox instantly become incorrect. I currently don't see a good workaround without changing NetBox code. Suggestions are welcome.

@dreng commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025): > Tunnels must terminate to interfaces. I agree. But in an active/passive configuration, how would you suggest to document such networks? Let's say, wie have two routers in an active/passive HA cluster, R1 and R2. In the current situation, you have to define the tunnel termination to an interface of just one of this devices, let's say tun0 of R1. If R1 fails, R2 becomes active automatically, which means that the tunnel termination switches to tun0 of R2. This situation lets the documented state in NetBox instantly become incorrect. I currently don't see a good workaround without changing NetBox code. Suggestions are welcome.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2025):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2025): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 complexity: low pending closure status: under review 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#10446
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?