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

Child prefix as container - utilization statistics incorrect #1730

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:47 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:47 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lancesdavis on GitHub (May 15, 2018).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 3.4.8
  • NetBox version: 2.3.3

Description

A child prefix set to be a container should not be included within the utilization statistics for the parent but only active prefixes within the tree should be included.

To replicate - create a /20 prefix as a container, create a /21 prefix as a container within the 1st prefix - eg same starting ip , utilization of /20 shows as 50% whereas I expected it to be zero

prefix1
prefix2

Originally created by @lancesdavis on GitHub (May 15, 2018). <!-- Before opening a new issue, please search through the existing issues to see if your topic has already been addressed. Note that you may need to remove the "is:open" filter from the search bar to include closed issues. Check the appropriate type for your issue below by placing an x between the brackets. For assistance with installation issues, or for any other issues other than those listed below, please raise your topic for discussion on our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please note that issues which do not fall under any of the below categories will be closed. Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which extend NetBox's feature scope. Do not prepend any sort of tag to your issue's title. An administrator will review your issue and assign labels as appropriate. ---> ### Issue type [ ] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [x] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> <!-- Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. (Be sure to verify that you are running the latest stable release of NetBox before submitting a bug report.) If you are submitting a bug report and have made any changes to the code base, please first validate that your bug can be recreated while running an official release. --> ### Environment * Python version: <!-- Example: 3.5.4 -->3.4.8 * NetBox version: <!-- Example: 2.1.3 --> 2.3.3 <!-- 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) FEATURE REQUESTS must include: * A detailed description of the proposed functionality * A use case for the new feature * A rough description of any necessary changes to the database schema * Any relevant third-party libraries which would be needed --> ### Description A child prefix set to be a container should not be included within the utilization statistics for the parent but only active prefixes within the tree should be included. To replicate - create a /20 prefix as a container, create a /21 prefix as a container within the 1st prefix - eg same starting ip , utilization of /20 shows as 50% whereas I expected it to be zero ![prefix1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38127506/40053363-dcea3d58-5838-11e8-8221-cf8e06324455.PNG) ![prefix2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38127506/40053365-dcfda834-5838-11e8-8091-6d0211e8bcb9.PNG)
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:48 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ktims commented on GitHub (May 15, 2018):

I'm not responsible for making the decision, but i think this is as expected, and I would like to note that I prefer the current behaviour.

@ktims commented on GitHub (May 15, 2018): I'm not responsible for making the decision, but i think this is as expected, and I would like to note that I prefer the current behaviour.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 16, 2018):

I am sorry but I don't see the bug here. This is working as intended IMO. Your container is using "5/10/50/80%" of the space, which is expected behaviour.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 16, 2018): I am sorry but I don't see the bug here. This is working as intended IMO. Your container is using "5/10/50/80%" of the space, which is expected behaviour.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lancesdavis commented on GitHub (May 16, 2018):

Maybe I am missing the point of containers - but it seems a contradiction that an empty container uses up the space ? It doesn't at the top level so why does it when it is a child ?

The attached shows 2 child level containers - utilization of the parent block is 100% - yet there are still 4096 ip addresses available to alllocate ?

container2
container3
container1

@lancesdavis commented on GitHub (May 16, 2018): Maybe I am missing the point of containers - but it seems a contradiction that an empty container uses up the space ? It doesn't at the top level so why does it when it is a child ? The attached shows 2 child level containers - utilization of the parent block is 100% - yet there are still 4096 ip addresses available to alllocate ? ![container2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38127506/40101478-78b19bea-58df-11e8-8c8a-91dab621445c.PNG) ![container3](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38127506/40101479-78c570ca-58df-11e8-9de8-f37c4b3afb6f.PNG) ![container1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38127506/40101481-78dc3c9c-58df-11e8-9d31-4ac8c56994f0.PNG)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2018):

This is intended behavior. A container represents an allocation of address space. The only special significance of a container (versus a non-container prefix) is that it may not exist as a real network. For example, you may have multiple "real" /24s configured on interfaces within your network which all belong to a parent /20 container. This /20 might not actually exist in the routing table; it's just an allocation.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2018): This is intended behavior. A container represents an allocation of address space. The only special significance of a container (versus a non-container prefix) is that it may not exist as a real network. For example, you may have multiple "real" /24s configured on interfaces within your network which all belong to a parent /20 container. This /20 might not actually exist in the routing table; it's just an allocation.
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#1730
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?