starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add additional tunnel encapsulation choices: PPTP, L2TP, EoIP, SSTP #10453

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:31:41 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:41 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jmcguir on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @jmcguir on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.1.4

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Triage priority

I volunteer to perform this work (if approved)

Proposed functionality

I'd like to add PPTP, L2TP, and EoIP as Tunnel Encapsulation Choices. PPTP, and L2TP are standards based tunnel protocols while EoIP is a MikroTik proprietary protocol and SSTP is a Microsoft proprietary protocol.

PPTP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2637
L2TP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2661
EoIP: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/spaces/ROS/pages/24805521/EoIP
SSTP: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-sstp/c50ed240-56f3-4309-8e0c-1644898f0ea8

As far as I can tell the only change here would be to add these fourto the choices.py here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/vpn/choices.py

Use case

This lets users model more accurately their VPN tunnels. Right now the choices don't have an other so you have to use an incorrect Encapsulation choice.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @jmcguir on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024). Originally assigned to: @jmcguir on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.1.4 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Triage priority I volunteer to perform this work (if approved) ### Proposed functionality I'd like to add PPTP, L2TP, and EoIP as Tunnel Encapsulation Choices. PPTP, and L2TP are standards based tunnel protocols while EoIP is a MikroTik proprietary protocol and SSTP is a Microsoft proprietary protocol. PPTP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2637 L2TP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2661 EoIP: https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/spaces/ROS/pages/24805521/EoIP SSTP: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-sstp/c50ed240-56f3-4309-8e0c-1644898f0ea8 As far as I can tell the only change here would be to add these fourto the choices.py here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/vpn/choices.py ### Use case This lets users model more accurately their VPN tunnels. Right now the choices don't have an other so you have to use an incorrect Encapsulation choice. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurecomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:31:41 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:31:41 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:42 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@chbally commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024):

Please also add WireGuard:
WireGuard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8922#name-wireguard
and if possible OpenVPN:
OpenVPN: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8922#name-openvpn

I think even if is kind of IP in IP lots of people would appreciate these two protokolls in Netbox:
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/14683

@chbally commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024): Please also add WireGuard: WireGuard: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8922#name-wireguard and if possible OpenVPN: OpenVPN: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8922#name-openvpn I think even if is kind of IP in IP lots of people would appreciate these two protokolls in Netbox: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/14683
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:42 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jmcguir commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2024):

If approved I'd be happy to add WireGuard and OpenVPN to a PR I'm willing to write.

@jmcguir commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2024): If approved I'd be happy to add WireGuard and OpenVPN to a PR I'm willing to write.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:43 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2024):

Let's not turn this into a wishlist for every potential tunneling protocol.

L2TP is a standard protocol with its own IP protocol number (115); I see no issue adding this.

Likewise, PPTP is a standard protocol which runs atop GRE using TCP/1723. This also makes sense to add.

EoIP appears to be a vendor-proprietary implementation of GRE. From the documentation provided, I see no justification for declaring this as a discrete tunnel type.

As far as I'm aware, SSTP is employed for client access and does not support site-to-site VPN tunneling. If this is the case, it does not make sense IMO to add it as a site-to-site tunnel encapsulation type.

Wireguard is a relatively newer VPN technology that utilizes multiple UDP ports beginning at 51820. As noted here we need to be careful not to imply that this change implements support for the configuration of Wireguard VPNs, but I have no issue with adding it as an encapsulation option.

Likewise, OpenVPN is a complete VPN solution; we can add it as a tunnel encapsulation option provided the scope of this change does not seek to implement support for specific configuration options.

To summarize, I believe this PR should be limited to adding the following tunnel encapsulation choices:

  • L2TP
  • PPTP
  • Wireguard
  • OpenVPN
@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2024): Let's not turn this into a wishlist for every potential tunneling protocol. L2TP is a standard protocol with its own IP protocol number (115); I see no issue adding this. Likewise, PPTP is a standard protocol which runs atop GRE using TCP/1723. This also makes sense to add. EoIP appears to be a vendor-proprietary implementation of GRE. From the documentation provided, I see no justification for declaring this as a discrete tunnel type. As far as I'm aware, SSTP is employed for client access and does not support site-to-site VPN tunneling. If this is the case, it does not make sense IMO to add it as a site-to-site tunnel encapsulation type. Wireguard is a relatively newer VPN technology that utilizes multiple UDP ports beginning at 51820. As noted [here](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/pull/18097#issuecomment-2507635866) we need to be careful not to imply that this change implements support for the _configuration_ of Wireguard VPNs, but I have no issue with adding it as an encapsulation option. Likewise, OpenVPN is a complete VPN solution; we can add it as a tunnel encapsulation option provided the scope of this change does not seek to implement support for specific configuration options. To summarize, I believe this PR should be limited to adding the following tunnel encapsulation choices: * L2TP * PPTP * Wireguard * OpenVPN
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:31:43 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jmcguir commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2024):

Thanks for your input Jeremy. I'll revise my PR with this feedback.

@jmcguir commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2024): Thanks for your input Jeremy. I'll revise my PR with this feedback.
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 status: accepted 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#10453
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?