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

Better filtering of IP Adresses #11077

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:39:55 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:55 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @LukasJohannesson on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.2.3

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Better filtering under IP Adresses tab under Prefixes

We have several Tenants and some of them have the same IP Prefixes.
Now under IP Adresses tab under Prefix it shows all of the different tenants ip adresses even though I am looking at a specific tenants prefix.

Would like this to change so I only see the IP adresses from the tenants that has the Prefix I am looking at

Pic for more info(where you can see there is 1148 IP adresses on a /24 because there are IPs from many different tenants):
Image

Use case

This would make it much more easier to handle duplicated IP-adresses

The only workaround at the moment is to use VRF but that takes a lot of time to add on every single IP-adress, and we do not use VRF in the network

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @LukasJohannesson on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.2.3 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Better filtering under IP Adresses tab under Prefixes We have several Tenants and some of them have the same IP Prefixes. Now under IP Adresses tab under Prefix it shows all of the different tenants ip adresses even though I am looking at a specific tenants prefix. Would like this to change so I only see the IP adresses from the tenants that has the Prefix I am looking at Pic for more info(where you can see there is 1148 IP adresses on a /24 because there are IPs from many different tenants): ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a90b8c96-8854-49c8-967b-b6b6ad2c3104) ### Use case This would make it much more easier to handle duplicated IP-adresses The only workaround at the moment is to use VRF but that takes a lot of time to add on every single IP-adress, and we do not use VRF in the network ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 21:39:55 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:39:55 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pheus commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025):

Thanks for the suggestion! I can see where you're coming from, especially when dealing with overlapping IPs across tenants. That said, I'm personally not in favor of this proposed change.

There are several scenarios where IP addresses from different tenants might exist within the same prefix, and I find it really valuable to have a full overview of all IP addresses within a given prefix—regardless of tenant. From my understanding of the NetBox data model, tenants are used to assign ownership or responsibility for objects like IPs or VLANs, while actual IP network segmentation is achieved through VRFs. This aligns with how things are typically handled in real-world networks.

The only workaround at the moment is to use VRF but that takes a lot of time to add on every single IP-adress, and we do not use VRF in the network

In my view, this isn’t just a workaround—it reflects real-world network design principles. If you're using the same prefix across different tenants without VRFs, it raises questions about how routing is managed in the actual network. I'd be genuinely curious to understand more about your setup and how that works technically.

Also, I'm not sure why adding VRF information would necessarily take a lot of time. You can filter the IPAddress model by tenant, then bulk-edit the filtered IP addresses to assign them to the appropriate customer/tenant VRF. The same applies to prefixes. Once that's done, adding new IP addresses via the Prefix detail page (as shown in your screenshot) will auto-fill the VRF based on the assigned prefix, which streamlines the process.

Pic for more info (where you can see there is 1148 IP adresses on a /24 because there are IPs from many different tenants):

This is expected behavior in NetBox, as IPs aren’t inherently bound to their parent prefixes. There's a related discussion in FR #7845 that touches on this topic as well.

Appreciate you bringing this up—it's always helpful to look at different workflows and perspectives!

@pheus commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025): Thanks for the suggestion! I can see where you're coming from, especially when dealing with overlapping IPs across tenants. That said, I'm personally not in favor of this proposed change. There are several scenarios where IP addresses from different tenants might exist within the same prefix, and I find it really valuable to have a full overview of all IP addresses within a given prefix—regardless of tenant. From my understanding of the NetBox data model, tenants are used to assign ownership or responsibility for objects like IPs or VLANs, while actual IP network segmentation is achieved through VRFs. This aligns with how things are typically handled in real-world networks. > The only workaround at the moment is to use VRF but that takes a lot of time to add on every single IP-adress, and we do not use VRF in the network In my view, this isn’t just a workaround—it reflects real-world network design principles. If you're using the same prefix across different tenants without VRFs, it raises questions about how routing is managed in the actual network. I'd be genuinely curious to understand more about your setup and how that works technically. Also, I'm not sure why adding VRF information would necessarily take a lot of time. You can filter the `IPAddress` model by tenant, then bulk-edit the filtered IP addresses to assign them to the appropriate customer/tenant VRF. The same applies to prefixes. Once that's done, adding new IP addresses via the Prefix detail page (as shown in your screenshot) will auto-fill the VRF based on the assigned prefix, which streamlines the process. > Pic for more info (where you can see there is 1148 IP adresses on a /24 because there are IPs from many different tenants): This is expected behavior in NetBox, as IPs aren’t inherently bound to their parent prefixes. There's a related discussion in FR #7845 that touches on this topic as well. Appreciate you bringing this up—it's always helpful to look at different workflows and perspectives!
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025):

This can be achieved using the global IP addresses list, where all the desired filters (including parent prefix) are already available. Duplicating the functionality on the child IP addresses list would complicate the UI and exceed the intended purpose of that view.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2025): This can be achieved using the global IP addresses list, where all the desired filters (including parent prefix) are already available. Duplicating the functionality on the child IP addresses list would complicate the UI and exceed the intended purpose of that view.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:39:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@LukasJohannesson commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2025):

Thanks for the replies.
Totally understand your view on it and that its sometimes valuable to have it in this way, just not for us at the moment.
But I will go forward with the VRF, seems to be working good and much easier to do then I first thought.

@LukasJohannesson commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2025): Thanks for the replies. Totally understand your view on it and that its sometimes valuable to have it in this way, just not for us at the moment. But I will go forward with the VRF, seems to be working good and much easier to do then I first thought.
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 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#11077
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?