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

Prefix Utilization is Always 0% #1382

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @girlpunk on GitHub (Nov 3, 2017).

Issue type

[ ] Feature request
[X] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.3
  • NetBox version: 2.2.4

Description

Just noticed this after upgrading to the latest version and adding some new prefixes to subnet an existing prefix. After doing so, the utilization for the new prefixes shows the correct number of IPs, but the percentage is always 0%.
This appears to be caused by the get_utilization() function's IPAddress filter.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Create a Prefix
  2. Add IPs to the prefix
  3. Subnet the prefix by adding a child prefix. The prefix correctly identifies the IPs already added, and shows them in the list and utilization count, but not the percentage.
Originally created by @girlpunk on GitHub (Nov 3, 2017). ### Issue type [ ] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [X] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.3 * NetBox version: 2.2.4 <!-- BUG REPORTS must include: * A list of the steps needed for someone else to reproduce the bug * A description of the expected and observed behavior * Any relevant error messages (screenshots may also help) --> ### Description Just noticed this after upgrading to the latest version and adding some new prefixes to subnet an existing prefix. After doing so, the utilization for the new prefixes shows the correct number of IPs, but the percentage is always 0%. This appears to be caused by the get_utilization() function's IPAddress filter. #### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a Prefix 1. Add IPs to the prefix 1. Subnet the prefix by adding a child prefix. The prefix correctly identifies the IPs already added, and shows them in the list and utilization count, but not the percentage.
adam added the type: bug label 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2017):

Utilization is counted differently depending on whether the prefix is designated as a container:

    def get_utilization(self):
        """
        Determine the utilization of the prefix and return it as a percentage. For Prefixes with a status of
        "container", calculate utilization based on child prefixes. For all others, count child IP addresses.
        """

Which type of prefix are you looking at?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2017): Utilization is counted differently depending on whether the prefix is designated as a container: ``` def get_utilization(self): """ Determine the utilization of the prefix and return it as a percentage. For Prefixes with a status of "container", calculate utilization based on child prefixes. For all others, count child IP addresses. """ ``` Which type of prefix are you looking at?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@girlpunk commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017):

The Utilization on the child prefixes is the one I'm looking at. I've already set the parent to a container, and its utilization is showing correctly. The top child prefix in the screenshot below (192.168.42.0/27) has 10 IPs assigned, so should be showing about 30% usage.

image

@girlpunk commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017): The Utilization on the child prefixes is the one I'm looking at. I've already set the parent to a container, and its utilization is showing correctly. The top child prefix in the screenshot below (192.168.42.0/27) has 10 IPs assigned, so should be showing about 30% usage. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/161093/32439945-ee90d11a-c2e8-11e7-8bad-82896fa6bd97.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017):

I think I see what's happening. Did you create those ten IPs with a mask larger than /27 (e.g. /24)? If so, the net_contained_or_equal filter won't count them (because a /24 obviously cannot be contained by a /27). Granted, we probably want to see all IPs within a prefix even if their masks are "wrong." I'm going to change the lookup to net_host_contained, which will return all IPs in the given prefix regardless of mask. Hopefully this won't break anything for people; I can't think of a situation where it would.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017): I think I see what's happening. Did you create those ten IPs with a mask larger than /27 (e.g. /24)? If so, the `net_contained_or_equal` filter won't count them (because a /24 obviously cannot be contained by a /27). Granted, we probably want to see _all_ IPs within a prefix even if their masks are "wrong." I'm going to change the lookup to `net_host_contained`, which will return all IPs in the given prefix regardless of mask. Hopefully this won't break anything for people; I can't think of a situation where it would.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@girlpunk commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017):

Yes, the IPs were created with /24, because that's the mask in use by the hosts (the subnetting is just for allocation and organisation). That would make sense as to why they're not detected then. Does the count on the prefix page use the net_host_contained function, as that is correct?

@girlpunk commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017): Yes, the IPs were created with /24, because that's the mask in use by the hosts (the subnetting is just for allocation and organisation). That would make sense as to why they're not detected then. Does the count on the prefix page use the `net_host_contained` function, as that is correct?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017):

@cyberjacob Yes, the count was using net_host_contained but the get_utilization() method on the prefix was using net_contained_or_equal.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2017): @cyberjacob Yes, the count was using `net_host_contained` but the `get_utilization()` method on the prefix was using `net_contained_or_equal`.
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: bug
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#1382
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?