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

Extend possibility to assign Contacts #11696

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:48:43 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:43 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @alexblaeuer on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.4.2

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Created the issue based on #19920.
Just like for Prefixes, I would like to be able to assign Contacts to VRF, VLAN and VLAN Groups.

Use case

Document who/what is responsible for those entities.

Database changes

Schema for models would inherit attributes of ContactsMixin.

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @alexblaeuer on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.4.2 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Created the issue based on #19920. Just like for Prefixes, I would like to be able to assign Contacts to VRF, VLAN and VLAN Groups. ### Use case Document who/what is responsible for those entities. ### Database changes Schema for models would inherit attributes of `ContactsMixin`. ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurenetbox labels 2025-12-29 21:48:43 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:48:43 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alexblaeuer commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025):

I would be willing to implement it, if the request gets approved.

@alexblaeuer commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025): I would be willing to implement it, if the request gets approved.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2025):

Can you share real-world examples where each of these would prove useful?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2025): Can you share real-world examples where each of these would prove useful?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alexblaeuer commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2025):

VRF
Multiple MPLS VPN Services are provided to a customer. The customer is managed as tenant in NetBox and a VRF is created for the MPLS VPN Service. As those services not always have the same customer contact, it would be nice, to directly like those contacts to a VRF.

VLAN and VLAN Groups
Sometimes we only provide Layer 2 connectivity throughout a site. So a customer would be assigned to a VLAN that has multiple access ports on different switches. Since we do not provide any Layer 3 service, the is no prefix (that would have a contact assigned) that we link to the VLAN.
The service would be provided to a customer that is managed as tenant in NetBox, where the VLAN / VLAN Group would be linked to. There are multiple contacts, that are responsible on customer site, depending where the service is provided. So it would be nice, to directly like those contacts to a VLAN / VLAN Group.

@alexblaeuer commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2025): **VRF** Multiple MPLS VPN Services are provided to a customer. The customer is managed as tenant in NetBox and a VRF is created for the MPLS VPN Service. As those services not always have the same customer contact, it would be nice, to directly like those contacts to a VRF. **VLAN and VLAN Groups** Sometimes we only provide Layer 2 connectivity throughout a site. So a customer would be assigned to a VLAN that has multiple access ports on different switches. Since we do not provide any Layer 3 service, the is no prefix (that would have a contact assigned) that we link to the VLAN. The service would be provided to a customer that is managed as tenant in NetBox, where the VLAN / VLAN Group would be linked to. There are multiple contacts, that are responsible on customer site, depending where the service is provided. So it would be nice, to directly like those contacts to a VLAN / VLAN Group.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2025):

This seems unnecessarily extraneous to the tenant relationship. Typically you would assign contacts to the tenant rather than to individual (largely abstract) entities assigned to the tenant. That seems like it would be an absolute nightmare to manage.

After some discussion among the maintainers we're going to decline this proposal.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2025): This seems unnecessarily extraneous to the tenant relationship. Typically you would assign contacts to the tenant rather than to individual (largely abstract) entities assigned to the tenant. That seems like it would be an absolute nightmare to manage. After some discussion among the maintainers we're going to decline this proposal.
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 netbox 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#11696
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?