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

Add support for virtual networks #2299

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:24:37 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:37 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @LukeDRussell on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6
  • NetBox version: 2.4.8

Proposed Functionality

Add support for virtual networks.

  • vSwitches
  • Connecting VM interfaces to vSwitch interfaces
  • Connecting vSwitch interfaces to physical interfaces
  • Assigning VLANs to vSwitches

Use Case

Accurately modelling virtual networks.

Database Changes

Probably a new virtual switch object, which would be very similar to a normal network device.

External Dependencies

Originally created by @LukeDRussell on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for proposing specific new features or enhancements. If you have a general idea or question, please post to our mailing list instead of opening an issue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss NOTE: Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which significantly extend NetBox's feature scope. Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.6 * NetBox version: 2.4.8 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality Add support for virtual networks. * vSwitches * Connecting VM interfaces to vSwitch interfaces * Connecting vSwitch interfaces to physical interfaces * Assigning VLANs to vSwitches <!-- Convey an example use case for your proposed feature. Write from the perspective of a NetBox user who would benefit from the proposed functionality and describe how. ---> ### Use Case Accurately modelling virtual networks. <!-- Note any changes to the database schema necessary to support the new feature. For example, does the proposal require adding a new model or field? (Not all new features require database changes.) ---> ### Database Changes Probably a new virtual switch object, which would be very similar to a normal network device. <!-- List any new dependencies on external libraries or services that this new feature would introduce. For example, does the proposal require the installation of a new Python package? (Not all new features introduce new dependencies.) --> ### External Dependencies
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:24:38 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019):

This would amount to a major new feature, and unfortunately we're not currently accepting requests which would extend NetBox's scope (see the contributing guide). It's a topic we'll almost certainly revisit at some point in the future once the current backlog of feature requests has been addressed.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019): This would amount to a major new feature, and unfortunately we're not currently accepting requests which would extend NetBox's scope (see the [contributing guide](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md)). It's a topic we'll almost certainly revisit at some point in the future once the current backlog of feature requests has been addressed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sleeplessnight2 commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019):

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6
  • NetBox version: 2.4.8

Proposed Functionality

Add support for virtual networks.

  • vSwitches
  • Connecting VM interfaces to vSwitch interfaces
  • Connecting vSwitch interfaces to physical interfaces
  • Assigning VLANs to vSwitches

Use Case

Accurately modelling virtual networks.

Database Changes

Probably a new virtual switch object, which would be very similar to a normal network device.

External Dependencies

Luke, ist there a possibility to do this as a own fork?

I'm recieving the same answer as you and it smells like laziness, because a vswitch and a real switch does not make any difference to Netbox. IP's are IP's. Used virtual or not. And IP's are part of the core of an IPAM.

@sleeplessnight2 commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2019): > ### Environment > * Python version: 3.6 > * NetBox version: 2.4.8 > > ### Proposed Functionality > Add support for virtual networks. > > * vSwitches > * Connecting VM interfaces to vSwitch interfaces > * Connecting vSwitch interfaces to physical interfaces > * Assigning VLANs to vSwitches > > ### Use Case > Accurately modelling virtual networks. > > ### Database Changes > Probably a new virtual switch object, which would be very similar to a normal network device. > > ### External Dependencies Luke, ist there a possibility to do this as a own fork? I'm recieving the same answer as you and it smells like laziness, because a vswitch and a real switch does not make any difference to Netbox. IP's are IP's. Used virtual or not. And IP's are part of the core of an IPAM.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2019):

You can totally fork this or submit a PR with a proposed model, that is your freedom given the open source nature of this project. Many users actually just model the virtual switches and routers as physical devices for now and apply a tag as "virtual".

@jeremystretch was providing a clear answer, and I do not see any laziness here. To quote the link he provided you:

Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which substantially extend NetBox's functionality beyond its current feature set. This includes the introduction of any new views or models which have not already been proposed in an existing feature request.

The reality is that:

  • The project contributors would not look to simply just implement a "quick implementation" given the impact to user base if the data model is not done well
  • A virtual switch model would extend NetBox's functionality beyond just IPs (how do you map physical ports, virtual ports, bare metals, and everything else to a V-Switch
  • This new feature set would need to be iterated, improved, and patched
  • It is possible the current contributors have a ton of v-switch experience and would be able to provide the best insight into this model.

Given all the above, the focus should be to stabilize the current feature set, fix any bugs, and implement the already agreed features. Adding this one feature can open up the flood gates to more requests like this. It is purely a time and focus problem.

@sleeplessnight2 it seems a little hypocritical for you to call anyone contributing to this project lazy. Do you even know how to view the data model? Have you forked and attempted to PR your changes into the project?

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2019): You can totally fork this or submit a PR with a proposed model, that is your freedom given the open source nature of this project. Many users actually just model the virtual switches and routers as physical devices for now and apply a tag as "virtual". @jeremystretch was providing a clear answer, and I do not see any laziness here. To quote the link he provided you: > Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which substantially extend NetBox's functionality beyond its current feature set. This includes the introduction of any new views or models which have not already been proposed in an existing feature request. The reality is that: - The project contributors would not look to simply just implement a "quick implementation" given the impact to user base if the data model is not done well - A virtual switch model would extend NetBox's functionality beyond just IPs (how do you map physical ports, virtual ports, bare metals, and everything else to a V-Switch - This new feature set would need to be iterated, improved, and patched - It is possible the current contributors have a ton of v-switch experience and would be able to provide the best insight into this model. Given all the above, the focus should be to stabilize the current feature set, fix any bugs, and implement the already agreed features. Adding this one feature can open up the flood gates to more requests like this. It is purely a time and focus problem. @sleeplessnight2 it seems a little hypocritical for you to call anyone contributing to this project lazy. Do you even know how to view the data model? Have you forked and attempted to PR your changes into the project?
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#2299
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?