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

Change IP/Prefix Import to use VRF Name instead of VRF RD #3001

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Wally1169 on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.7
  • NetBox version: 2.6.6

Proposed Functionality

IP Prefix Import, VRF field currently only imports based on the RD assigned to the VRF. Per Jeremy Stretch, this is because RD used to be a required field, but is no longer. With Name now being the only required field on VRF, it might make more sense to import the VRF field of the IP Prefix using the VRF Name instead of the RD.

Use Case

Simplified import for users using VRFs not for a situation involving RDs (i.e. MPLS) but instead using it to just group IP Prefixes into a logical grouping

Database Changes

None known

External Dependencies

None known

Originally created by @Wally1169 on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.7 * NetBox version: 2.6.6 ### Proposed Functionality IP Prefix Import, VRF field currently only imports based on the RD assigned to the VRF. Per Jeremy Stretch, this is because RD used to be a required field, but is no longer. With Name now being the only required field on VRF, it might make more sense to import the VRF field of the IP Prefix using the VRF Name instead of the RD. ### Use Case Simplified import for users using VRFs not for a situation involving RDs (i.e. MPLS) but instead using it to just group IP Prefixes into a logical grouping ### Database Changes None known ### External Dependencies None known
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019):

Addendum: this would also theoretically apply to the IP Address Import as well

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019): Addendum: this would also theoretically apply to the IP Address Import as well
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019):

One issue here is that the VRF name is not unique, whereas the RD (if present) is.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019): One issue here is that the VRF name is not unique, whereas the RD (if present) is.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019):

That's an viable and excellent point

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019): That's an viable and excellent point
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019):

This really hits on a recurring theme, where it would be nice to have control over the field through which we reference a related object. Maybe something like

vrf.name,prefix,status
FooBarVRF,192.0.2.0/24,Active

for importing by VRF name, and

vrf.rd,prefix,status
65000:123,192.0.2.0/24,Active

for importing by VRF RD. I'm not sure how complicated that would get as far as the CSV import form goes though. We'd also still need a default behavior for the field.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019): This really hits on a recurring theme, where it would be nice to have control over the field through which we reference a related object. Maybe something like ``` vrf.name,prefix,status FooBarVRF,192.0.2.0/24,Active ``` for importing by VRF name, and ``` vrf.rd,prefix,status 65000:123,192.0.2.0/24,Active ``` for importing by VRF RD. I'm not sure how complicated that would get as far as the CSV import form goes though. We'd also still need a default behavior for the field.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:24:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019):

That's a really cool idea. Hope you're able to implement it

@Wally1169 commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2019): That's a really cool idea. Hope you're able to implement it
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 status: accepted 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#3001
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?