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

route-target support #283

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:20:32 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jtdub on GitHub (Jul 24, 2016).

Apologies if this has already been requested. I browsed through the open issues, but nothing stuck out.

It would be helpful to be able to assign VRF's to a sight. This means that we would need to be able to have duplicate VRF names, but only if the site doesn't currently have a VRF assigned to it by that name.

Example:

Valid duplicate VRF:

VRF: Internet, Site: DFW
VRF: Internet, Site: ORD

Invalid duplicate VRF:

VRF: Internet, Site: DFW
VRF: Internet, Site: DFW

Then have the ability to assign the VRF with a default import/export route-target and the ability to import/export route-targets from already created VRF's. Thoughts?

Originally created by @jtdub on GitHub (Jul 24, 2016). Apologies if this has already been requested. I browsed through the open issues, but nothing stuck out. It would be helpful to be able to assign VRF's to a sight. This means that we would need to be able to have duplicate VRF names, but only if the site doesn't currently have a VRF assigned to it by that name. Example: Valid duplicate VRF: ``` VRF: Internet, Site: DFW VRF: Internet, Site: ORD ``` Invalid duplicate VRF: ``` VRF: Internet, Site: DFW VRF: Internet, Site: DFW ``` Then have the ability to assign the VRF with a default import/export route-target and the ability to import/export route-targets from already created VRF's. Thoughts?
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:20:32 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2016):

It doesn't make sense to assign a VRF to a site, since one VRF may span multiple sites. A VRF represents a routing table; it doesn't necessarily have any correlation to a physical site.

I do plan to implement RT-based import/export among VRFs at some point, but that's not related to the assignment of a VRF to a site.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2016): It doesn't make sense to assign a VRF to a site, since one VRF may span multiple sites. A VRF represents a routing table; it doesn't necessarily have any correlation to a physical site. I do plan to implement RT-based import/export among VRFs at some point, but that's not related to the assignment of a VRF to a site.
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#283
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?