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

Can Aggregates Take into account IP Addresses not just Prefixes? #178

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:18:57 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:18:57 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @65156 on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016).

As title.

I'd like to be able to see available IP addresses within some of my IP aggregates, for example if I want to monitor IP availability for some Public Subnets, I dont want to have to create /32 prefix's

Could there be an option within a prefix to select whether it reports by Prefix or IP utilization as obviously we cant report both.

Originally created by @65156 on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016). As title. I'd like to be able to see available IP addresses within some of my IP aggregates, for example if I want to monitor IP availability for some Public Subnets, I dont want to have to create /32 prefix's Could there be an option within a prefix to select whether it reports by Prefix or IP utilization as obviously we cant report both.
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 16:18:57 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:18:57 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:18:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016):

Reporting on individual IPs used is actually a lot simpler than accounting for child prefixes, since it's just a count of all IP addresses within the aggregate prefix as a fraction of the total available IPs. For example, if an aggregate 192.168.0.0/16 has 4827 IPs defined, its utilization is 4827/65536 (~7%).

It may be reasonable to display both prefix and IP utilization in the aggregate table, depending on how much room we need for the description.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016): Reporting on individual IPs used is actually a lot simpler than accounting for child prefixes, since it's just a count of all IP addresses within the aggregate prefix as a fraction of the total available IPs. For example, if an aggregate 192.168.0.0/16 has 4827 IPs defined, its utilization is 4827/65536 (~7%). It may be reasonable to display both prefix and IP utilization in the aggregate table, depending on how much room we need for the description.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:18:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Gelob commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016):

Maybe a dupe or similar to https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/40 ?

@Gelob commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2016): Maybe a dupe or similar to https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/40 ?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:18:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2017):

Reporting on individual IPs used is actually a lot simpler than accounting for child prefixes

Not much use for IPv6 though! I suggest for that case, the figure of interest is the number of /64's touched.

if an aggregate 192.168.0.0/16 has 4827 IPs defined, its utilization is 4827/65536 (~7%)

Yes this is possibly an interesting figure, but may be misleading. It can hide that you have some prefixes at or close to 100% utilisation, and no way to grow them without serious renumbering.

I think the real issue is that Netbox only reports utilisation at the level of Aggregate, not at the Prefix level. If you could see utilisation of each prefix separately, that would go a long way I think.

Within a prefix:

  1. If it contains only IP addresses, then you can report the utilisation as (IPs defined / total space)
  2. If it contains prefixes, then you can report the utilisation as (child prefix space / total space)
  3. If it contains both, then you count (child prefix space) + (IPs directly contained but not within child prefixes) - although that's admittedly an odd situation

And maybe (1) and (2) should be different colours.

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2017): > Reporting on individual IPs used is actually a lot simpler than accounting for child prefixes Not much use for IPv6 though! I suggest for that case, the figure of interest is the number of /64's touched. > if an aggregate 192.168.0.0/16 has 4827 IPs defined, its utilization is 4827/65536 (~7%) Yes this is possibly an interesting figure, but may be misleading. It can hide that you have some prefixes at or close to 100% utilisation, and no way to grow them without serious renumbering. I think the real issue is that Netbox only reports utilisation at the level of *Aggregate*, not at the *Prefix* level. If you could see utilisation of each prefix separately, that would go a long way I think. Within a prefix: 1. If it contains only IP addresses, then you can report the utilisation as (IPs defined / total space) 2. If it contains prefixes, then you can report the utilisation as (child prefix space / total space) 3. If it contains both, then you count (child prefix space) + (IPs directly contained but not within child prefixes) - although that's admittedly an odd situation And maybe (1) and (2) should be different colours.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:18:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2017):

There doesn't seem to have been much interest in this so I'm closing it out.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2017): There doesn't seem to have been much interest in this so I'm closing it out.
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: 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#178
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?