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 new protocol type on Application service template #11583

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 21:47:09 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:09 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @m0rp30 on GitHub (Sep 6, 2025).

NetBox version

v.4.4.0-3.4.0

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Considering that many services use both TCP and UDP protocols, it would be useful to have an option such as “TCP/UDP.” Even more interesting would be the ability to add the desired protocol type so that it can be customized as desired without having to create new issues.

Use case

In a service like DNS the protocols as both TCP and UDP for the same port 53

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @m0rp30 on GitHub (Sep 6, 2025). ### NetBox version v.4.4.0-3.4.0 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Considering that many services use both TCP and UDP protocols, it would be useful to have an option such as “TCP/UDP.” Even more interesting would be the ability to add the desired protocol type so that it can be customized as desired without having to create new issues. ### Use case In a service like DNS the protocols as both TCP and UDP for the same port 53 ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2025):

Related (if not duplicate) issues:

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2025): Related (if not duplicate) issues: - #17395 - #11888 - #16841 - #17196
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

Rather than adding a new combined "TCP/UDP" option, it would probably be more robust to convert the field to a multi-choice field, allowing the user to select TCP and/or UDP (and potentially other protocols).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): Rather than adding a new combined "TCP/UDP" option, it would probably be more robust to convert the field to a multi-choice field, allowing the user to select TCP and/or UDP (and potentially other protocols).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

Talked about this more with the other maintainers. To provide even more flexibility, we could merge the protocol and ports fields into a single ArrayField denoting individual items as protocol & port combinations. For example: tcp/80, tcp/443, udp/999.

This will require a bit more work on the frontend, but will allow users to clearly define the protocols and ports in use. It will also enable more efficient filtering for services.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): Talked about this more with the other maintainers. To provide even more flexibility, we could merge the `protocol` and `ports` fields into a single ArrayField denoting individual items as protocol & port combinations. For example: `tcp/80, tcp/443, udp/999`. This will require a bit more work on the frontend, but will allow users to clearly define the protocols and ports in use. It will also enable more efficient filtering for services.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@m0rp30 commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2025):

It's an excellent idea in that the concept of protocol and port are linked.

@m0rp30 commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2025): It's an excellent idea in that the concept of protocol and port are linked.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:47:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2025):

does this mean we'll also get the ability to assign multiple port/protocol combinations to a single service?

@ghost commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2025): does this mean we'll also get the ability to assign multiple port/protocol combinations to a single service?
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 breaking change complexity: medium needs milestone netbox status: backlog 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#11583
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?