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

The possibility of linking Virtual Interfaces of a VM to a physical interface #2294

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:24:35 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:35 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sleeplessnight2 on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.7
  • NetBox version: 2.5.2

Proposed Functionality

The possibility of linking Virtual Interfaces of a VM to a physical interface.

Example: Vmware ESXi has Virtual Switches. Documenting this, in which one can associate a VM machine with a physical interface, makes a great deal of work easier, since ESXi can only assign MAC addresses to the physical interface and there is usually never a MAC on the Ethernet port.

Use Case

That would be very helpful, because otherwise you would have to make the connection in a very confusing way (by interface name and / or only in the description).

When you look at the physical machine you can see which virtual machines are involved, should you disconnect the physical connection X.

This is very helpful if you want to use Netbox to document racks and their contents to perform maintenance on specific machines.

Database Changes

I believe this will require an addition of a new field.

Originally created by @sleeplessnight2 on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.7 * NetBox version: 2.5.2 ### Proposed Functionality The possibility of linking Virtual Interfaces of a VM to a physical interface. Example: Vmware ESXi has Virtual Switches. Documenting this, in which one can associate a VM machine with a physical interface, makes a great deal of work easier, since ESXi can only assign MAC addresses to the physical interface and there is usually never a MAC on the Ethernet port. ### Use Case That would be very helpful, because otherwise you would have to make the connection in a very confusing way (by interface name and / or only in the description). When you look at the physical machine you can see which virtual machines are involved, should you disconnect the physical connection X. This is very helpful if you want to use Netbox to document racks and their contents to perform maintenance on specific machines. ### Database Changes I believe this will require an addition of a new field.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:24:35 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019):

Different virtualization platforms have different ways of representing interface associations and attempting to accomodate them all would be a never-ending chore. It's also pretty firmly outside NetBox's role as an IPAM/DCIM system. Closing as out of scope.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019): Different virtualization platforms have different ways of representing interface associations and attempting to accomodate them all would be a never-ending chore. It's also pretty firmly outside NetBox's role as an IPAM/DCIM system. Closing as out of scope.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sleeplessnight2 commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019):

Sorry, that's not true. They all have to follow the same principle: One phyiscal Port to one or many Virtual Interfaces. This solution is platform independent.

But if that is not Netbox's role as IPAM then I wonder why it has a cable management on board. Or a Rack Managment.
I do not want to argue, but that's exactly what made netbox so interesting for me / us. Using a different system for each case is impractical and does not make much sense. Maybe also a reason why the topic of documentation is always avoided.

In any case, Netbox is no longer pure IPAM in the current range of functions.
Too bad that this is not desirable. Anyway, I can give an answer to the question of why Netbox can not do that simple function: It is not desired by you.

@sleeplessnight2 commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019): Sorry, that's not true. They all have to follow the same principle: One phyiscal Port to one or many Virtual Interfaces. This solution is platform independent. But if that is not Netbox's role as IPAM then I wonder why it has a cable management on board. Or a Rack Managment. I do not want to argue, but that's exactly what made netbox so interesting for me / us. Using a different system for each case is impractical and does not make much sense. Maybe also a reason why the topic of documentation is always avoided. In any case, Netbox is no longer pure IPAM in the current range of functions. Too bad that this is not desirable. Anyway, I can give an answer to the question of why Netbox can not do that simple function: It is not desired by you.
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#2294
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?