starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Virtual interfaces to VC #1604

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:33:24 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:24 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @PeepOks on GitHub (Mar 6, 2018).

Issue type

[x] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7.5
  • NetBox version: 2.3.1

Description

We would like to have ability to assign virtual interfaces with IP to Virtual Chassis.
For example reth interfaces for SRX chassis clusters and VLAN interfaces for Cisco stacks. These interfaces are shared between all members of virtual chassis but are active only on master device.
If I would assign IP to that virtual interface then it should be assigned to only to virtual chassis master device. When I change master device of VC then assigned IP should show that it is assigned to new master device.

Originally created by @PeepOks on GitHub (Mar 6, 2018). ### Issue type [x] Feature request [ ] Bug report [ ] Documentation ### Environment * Python version: 2.7.5 * NetBox version: 2.3.1 ### Description We would like to have ability to assign virtual interfaces with IP to Virtual Chassis. For example reth interfaces for SRX chassis clusters and VLAN interfaces for Cisco stacks. These interfaces are shared between all members of virtual chassis but are active only on master device. If I would assign IP to that virtual interface then it should be assigned to only to virtual chassis master device. When I change master device of VC then assigned IP should show that it is assigned to new master device.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:33:24 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2018):

These interfaces are shared between all members of virtual chassis but are active only on master device.

Like physical interfaces, virtual interfaces from all VC members are included in the interfaces list when viewing the VC master device.

If I would assign IP to that virtual interface then it should be assigned to only to virtual chassis master device. When I change master device of VC then assigned IP should show that it is assigned to new master device.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're proposing.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2018): > These interfaces are shared between all members of virtual chassis but are active only on master device. Like physical interfaces, virtual interfaces from all VC members are included in the interfaces list when viewing the VC master device. > If I would assign IP to that virtual interface then it should be assigned to only to virtual chassis master device. When I change master device of VC then assigned IP should show that it is assigned to new master device. I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're proposing.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 7, 2018):

Overall I would like netbox to show in which device virtual interface is really active and forwarding packets.
Currently if VC has been configured and when I add new virtual interface to it then it will be assigned to one of VC member.
I would be more reasonable if new virtual interface would be added to VC master device(if device is member of VC). If VC master changes then virtual interface relation to device should also change.
This info would help in network troubleshooting if I would know where some interface or IP are active in.

I did my test scenario like this. I added 2 devices to new VC. Under VC(selected VC master) I added new virtual interface. Then I changed VC master device.
Next if I add VIP IP to virtual interface then it would be assigned to backup device. This results to that VIP IP is assigned to VC backup device.

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 7, 2018): Overall I would like netbox to show in which device virtual interface is really active and forwarding packets. Currently if VC has been configured and when I add new virtual interface to it then it will be assigned to one of VC member. I would be more reasonable if new virtual interface would be added to VC master device(if device is member of VC). If VC master changes then virtual interface relation to device should also change. This info would help in network troubleshooting if I would know where some interface or IP are active in. I did my test scenario like this. I added 2 devices to new VC. Under VC(selected VC master) I added new virtual interface. Then I changed VC master device. Next if I add VIP IP to virtual interface then it would be assigned to backup device. This results to that VIP IP is assigned to VC backup device.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 7, 2018):

The recommended approach is to create virtual interfaces only on the master device. Changing the master device for a VC seems like too infrequent an action for it to warrant the additional (and potentially dangerous) logic needed to automatically reassign interfaces, but I'll leave this open for feedback.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 7, 2018): The recommended approach is to create virtual interfaces only on the master device. Changing the master device for a VC seems like too infrequent an action for it to warrant the additional (and potentially dangerous) logic needed to automatically reassign interfaces, but I'll leave this open for feedback.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2018):

Yes, that's true about infrequent master device changes with switches when they are formed into VC.
I try to apply VC logic also to firewall-routers (SRX, PaloAlto etc.) and other network equipment what are configured to work in HA configuration mode. There are master/active member changes more frequent.
Maybe I have misunderstood VC concept in netbox and it where ment to be used only for switches?

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2018): Yes, that's true about infrequent master device changes with switches when they are formed into VC. I try to apply VC logic also to firewall-routers (SRX, PaloAlto etc.) and other network equipment what are configured to work in HA configuration mode. There are master/active member changes more frequent. Maybe I have misunderstood VC concept in netbox and it where ment to be used only for switches?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2018):

it where ment to be used only for switches?

I think it is only meant for "Stacked switches" really, as I don't see it working well for something like vPC either, where you have individual interfaces on each device and a shared IP via HSRP (or doing something super crazy like EVPN with a anycast gateway)

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2018): > it where ment to be used only for switches? I think it is only meant for "Stacked switches" really, as I don't see it working well for something like vPC either, where you have individual interfaces on each device and a shared IP via HSRP (or doing something super crazy like EVPN with a anycast gateway)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2018):

If VC is ment mostly for switch stacks then I really hope in future we would get better support for HA configurations in routers and firewalls. It's pretty common to have some sort HA setup in production environments.

@PeepOks commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2018): If VC is ment mostly for switch stacks then I really hope in future we would get better support for HA configurations in routers and firewalls. It's pretty common to have some sort HA setup in production environments.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2018):

A virtual chassis represents a set of devices which share a single control plane. Whether something like an SRX cluster qualifies is debatable, but that debate is best held on the mailing list. Closing this out as there is no action to take.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2018): A virtual chassis represents a set of devices which share a single control plane. Whether something like an SRX cluster qualifies is debatable, but that debate is best held on the mailing list. Closing this out as there is no action to take.
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
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#1604
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?