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

Allow more Q-in-Q SVLAN options #10594

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:33:30 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:33:30 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sleepinggenius2 on GitHub (Dec 30, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.2-beta1

Feature type

Data model extension

Triage priority

N/A

Proposed functionality

  1. When trying to document a triple-tagged VLAN, creating the outermost SVLAN and setting the Q-in-Q role to "Service" works fine, but on the second VLAN in the stack, setting the Q-in-Q role to "Service" and setting the Q-in-Q SVLAN to the outermost SVLAN generates the validation error "Only Q-in-Q customer VLANs maybe assigned to a service VLAN." It seems an arbitrary restriction to disallow documenting nested SVLAN tags. I propose to have this restriction removed, as it could always be implemented with a custom validator, if appropriate in someone's environment.
  2. The Q-in-Q SVLAN selection should be a many-to-many relationship, not a many-to-one relationship, as a given VLAN may have different tags pushed onto it in different parts of the network, and the current model does not allow for that to be properly documented.

Use case

When transporting an OVC through our network, we sometimes run into contention with the customer's selected SVLAN that they wish to use on their ENNI, as it may not be available along the full path of the service. In that case, we may need to add one or more additional SVLANs for some or all of its path, ending up with triple-tagging. Even with a CVLAN, we find that different VLANs are available on different rings and we might need to push an SVLAN for a particular ring, and maybe a different one for a different ring. As the tag is only present within that given ring, it needs to be recorded as a separate VLAN object for documentation and provisioning purposes. Therefore, a given CVLAN or SVLAN may require one or more Q-in-Q SVLANs to properly document its path in the network. We are implementing this using a "Multiple objects" custom field to allow for basic documentation today, but would like to move over to the native implementation once it is available, for the additional features it would offer; the current implementation would not allow for that.

Database changes

Rename the qinq_svlan field on the Vlan model to qinq_svlans and change the type from ForeignKey to ManyToManyField.

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @sleepinggenius2 on GitHub (Dec 30, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.2-beta1 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Triage priority N/A ### Proposed functionality 1. When trying to document a triple-tagged VLAN, creating the outermost SVLAN and setting the Q-in-Q role to "Service" works fine, but on the second VLAN in the stack, setting the Q-in-Q role to "Service" and setting the Q-in-Q SVLAN to the outermost SVLAN generates the validation error "Only Q-in-Q customer VLANs maybe assigned to a service VLAN." It seems an arbitrary restriction to disallow documenting nested SVLAN tags. I propose to have this restriction removed, as it could always be implemented with a custom validator, if appropriate in someone's environment. 2. The Q-in-Q SVLAN selection should be a many-to-many relationship, not a many-to-one relationship, as a given VLAN may have different tags pushed onto it in different parts of the network, and the current model does not allow for that to be properly documented. ### Use case When transporting an OVC through our network, we sometimes run into contention with the customer's selected SVLAN that they wish to use on their ENNI, as it may not be available along the full path of the service. In that case, we may need to add one or more additional SVLANs for some or all of its path, ending up with triple-tagging. Even with a CVLAN, we find that different VLANs are available on different rings and we might need to push an SVLAN for a particular ring, and maybe a different one for a different ring. As the tag is only present within that given ring, it needs to be recorded as a separate VLAN object for documentation and provisioning purposes. Therefore, a given CVLAN or SVLAN may require one or more Q-in-Q SVLANs to properly document its path in the network. We are implementing this using a "Multiple objects" custom field to allow for basic documentation today, but would like to move over to the native implementation once it is available, for the additional features it would offer; the current implementation would not allow for that. ### Database changes Rename the `qinq_svlan` field on the `Vlan` model to `qinq_svlans` and change the type from `ForeignKey` to `ManyToManyField`. ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 21:33:30 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:33:30 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:33:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (May 19, 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 (May 19, 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 21:33:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 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 (Jun 18, 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 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#10594
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?