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

Bulk assign IP addresses to interface #2798

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:22:16 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:16 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @iwfjacob on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019).

Python version: 2.7.15
NetBox version: 2.6.2

Proposed Functionality

Bulk assign IP addresses to an interface from an existing prefix pool

Use Case

At the moment, there is no real way to bulk add IP addresses to a device / interface. An example would be let's say we have the subnet 192.168.1.0/24 as a pool, server A has been assigned 192.168.15-101 while server B has been assigned 192.168.132-168

At the moment, there is no real way to bulk assign an IP range, you have to go one by one adding the IP addresses .15 through .101. It should be very simple of coming from an IP pool (with the IP addresses created) you could add 192.168.[15-101]/24 to the interface

Originally created by @iwfjacob on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019). Python version: 2.7.15 NetBox version: 2.6.2 ### Proposed Functionality Bulk assign IP addresses to an interface from an existing prefix pool ### Use Case At the moment, there is no real way to bulk add IP addresses to a device / interface. An example would be let's say we have the subnet 192.168.1.0/24 as a pool, server A has been assigned 192.168.15-101 while server B has been assigned 192.168.132-168 At the moment, there is no real way to bulk assign an IP range, you have to go one by one adding the IP addresses .15 through .101. It should be very simple of coming from an IP pool (with the IP addresses created) you could add 192.168.[15-101]/24 to the interface
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:22:16 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Bitsky commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019):

+1 on this.

I had the case where I needed to add several hundred IP addresses to an interface and ended up writing a script for it because it would have taken hours via the UI.

That also reminds me that IP listings would benefit from pagination (eg display up to 50 IPs and add a "show all" button). If your IP list is in the upper 3-digit count, opening the device page slows down noticeably. Granted it's not an everyday case most users run into.

@Bitsky commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019): +1 on this. I had the case where I needed to add several hundred IP addresses to an interface and ended up writing a script for it because it would have taken hours via the UI. That also reminds me that IP listings would benefit from pagination (eg display up to 50 IPs and add a "show all" button). If your IP list is in the upper 3-digit count, opening the device page slows down noticeably. Granted it's not an everyday case most users run into.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@iwfjacob commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019):

pagination

Yes, absolutely. Pagination or grouping, IE showing 192.168.15-101/24 which could then be expanded.

@iwfjacob commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2019): >pagination Yes, absolutely. Pagination or grouping, IE showing 192.168.15-101/24 which could then be expanded.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2019):

@Bitsky - out of curiosity, are these load balancers you're working with? I had questions about how to best approach attaching VIPs to a device interface and given the concerns noted in this thread I've opted to hold off on attaching them to a device.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2019): @Bitsky - out of curiosity, are these load balancers you're working with? I had questions about how to best approach attaching VIPs to a device interface and given the concerns noted in this thread I've opted to hold off on attaching them to a device.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Bitsky commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2019):

@tyler-8 Not really. Just normal systems where we park parts of unused pools instead of nullrouting.

@Bitsky commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2019): @tyler-8 Not really. Just normal systems where we park parts of unused pools instead of nullrouting.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2019):

An example would be let's say we have the subnet 192.168.1.0/24 as a pool, server A has been assigned 192.168.15-101 while server B has been assigned 192.168.132-168

These would not be interface assignments, but rather IPs designated as belonging to a particular administrative group. NetBox tags can be used for this function.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2019): > An example would be let's say we have the subnet 192.168.1.0/24 as a pool, server A has been assigned 192.168.15-101 while server B has been assigned 192.168.132-168 These would not be interface assignments, but rather IPs designated as belonging to a particular administrative group. NetBox tags can be used for this function.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@iwfjacob commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2019):

@jeremystretch they are interface assignments though. In the physical server, it has ifcfg-range0 for example with all of those IP addresses assigned to it. Are you saying each server would then need a separate administrative group and tag?

@iwfjacob commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2019): @jeremystretch they are interface assignments though. In the physical server, it has ifcfg-range0 for example with all of those IP addresses assigned to it. Are you saying each server would then need a separate administrative group and tag?
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#2798
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?