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

Disassociate between interface FHRP group assignment options and interface IP address #11060

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:39:45 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:45 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @hzc12321 on GitHub (Apr 22, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.2.5

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Existing functionality : When trying to assign FHRP groups to interfaces, only FHRP groups with a related IP address assigned are displayed as options. (I didn't really read the code, but from the system behaviour, "related" means the FHRP group must be assigned an IP address of the same subnet prefix as the interface IP)

Proposed functionality : When trying to assign FHRP groups to interfaces, all FHRP groups should be displayed as options regardless of any relationship between the FHRP group IP and interface IP

There isn't a need to worry about being too hard to find the right FHRP group when hundreds of groups being displayed as mentioned in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/8435 . The purpose of "Avoiding the user from having to select from hundreds of potential groups" is already achieved by another functionality where users are allowed to type and quick search within the column.

Related issues :
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/18975
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/18696

Use case

This is a removal of unnecessary existing restriction. It's not a must that each interface's IP address is under the same parent prefix as the FHRP group's VIP, there could be additional mechanisms like NAT in the middle. For example : We have a whole dedicated subnet specifically used as F5 load-balanced service VIPs, and the VM interface IPs are not from the same subnet.

There is an existing workaround; Assigning FHRP groups to the interface before assigning a physical IP, but this is not clean and not scalable. Once the interface IP is specified, it's painful when there is a need to modify its FHRP group assignments.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @hzc12321 on GitHub (Apr 22, 2025). Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.2.5 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Existing functionality : When trying to assign FHRP groups to interfaces, only FHRP groups with a related IP address assigned are displayed as options. (I didn't really read the code, but from the system behaviour, "related" means the FHRP group must be assigned an IP address of the same subnet prefix as the interface IP) Proposed functionality : When trying to assign FHRP groups to interfaces, all FHRP groups should be displayed as options regardless of any relationship between the FHRP group IP and interface IP There isn't a need to worry about being too hard to find the right FHRP group when hundreds of groups being displayed as mentioned in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/8435 . The purpose of "Avoiding the user from having to select from hundreds of potential groups" is already achieved by another functionality where users are allowed to type and quick search within the column. Related issues : https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/18975 https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/18696 ### Use case This is a removal of unnecessary existing restriction. It's not a must that each interface's IP address is under the same parent prefix as the FHRP group's VIP, there could be additional mechanisms like NAT in the middle. For example : We have a whole dedicated subnet specifically used as F5 load-balanced service VIPs, and the VM interface IPs are not from the same subnet. There is an existing workaround; Assigning FHRP groups to the interface before assigning a physical IP, but this is not clean and not scalable. Once the interface IP is specified, it's painful when there is a need to modify its FHRP group assignments. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurecomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:39:45 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:39:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 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 (Jul 22, 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 21:39:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jmiezitis commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

Would be great to see this implemented. hzc12321 has provided a well thought out description of what is needed and meets my use case perfectly. The only difference is we are using a FortiGate virtual service functionality to provide an external public IP address in front of internal (RFC1918) servers.

@jmiezitis commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): Would be great to see this implemented. hzc12321 has provided a well thought out description of what is needed and meets my use case perfectly. The only difference is we are using a FortiGate virtual service functionality to provide an external public IP address in front of internal (RFC1918) servers.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025):

If implemented, this should include expanding the q (search) filter to also match on group ID.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025): If implemented, this should include expanding the `q` (search) filter to also match on group ID.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pheus commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2025):

I'd like to contribute this feature. Can you please assign it to me? Thanks

@pheus commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2025): I'd like to contribute this feature. Can you please assign it to me? Thanks
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#11060
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?