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

IPAM Container Prefix Grouping with Tenants #3060

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:25:14 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:14 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @arjenvri on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7.15
  • NetBox version: 2.6.8

Steps to Reproduce

When adding overlapping scopes with different Tenants the container prefix grouping seems to not take into account the Tenant. Should different Tenants provide a logical border with grouping prefixes?

  1. Create two parent prefixes with range 172.16.0.0/12, assign both to a different Tenant and set prefix type to Container
  2. Add two child prefixes, one 172.17.24.0/24 and another 172.17.48.0/24. Assign one prefix to the first Tenant created in step 1, the other prefix to the other Tenant created in step 1
  3. Notice that the grouping of the child subnets will not occur under the parent prefix with the same Tenant. They all will be grouped under one of the two parent prefixes randomly

Expected Behavior

Grouping based on prefix within a tenant.

Observed Behavior

NetboxContainerGrouping

Originally created by @arjenvri on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, DO NOT open an issue. Instead, post to our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss 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: 2.7.15 * NetBox version: 2.6.8 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox (or the current beta release where applicable). Begin with the creation of any necessary database objects and call out every operation being performed explicitly. If reporting a bug in the REST API, be sure to reconstruct the raw HTTP request(s) being made: Don't rely on a wrapper like pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce When adding overlapping scopes with different Tenants the container prefix grouping seems to not take into account the Tenant. Should different Tenants provide a logical border with grouping prefixes? 1. Create two parent prefixes with range 172.16.0.0/12, assign both to a different Tenant and set prefix type to Container 2. Add two child prefixes, one 172.17.24.0/24 and another 172.17.48.0/24. Assign one prefix to the first Tenant created in step 1, the other prefix to the other Tenant created in step 1 3. Notice that the grouping of the child subnets will not occur under the parent prefix with the same Tenant. They all will be grouped under one of the two parent prefixes randomly <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior Grouping based on prefix within a tenant. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior ![NetboxContainerGrouping](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/44755022/70551716-57b92b80-1b78-11ea-8344-88332c40f577.PNG)
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:25:14 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019):

Please provide a specific list of steps to recreate the reported behavior.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019): Please provide a specific list of steps to recreate the reported behavior.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arjenvri commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019):

thank you, updated ticket with steps

@arjenvri commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2019): thank you, updated ticket with steps
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2020):

I don't think Tenants are expected to be a border for overlapping prefixes. What you're describing would be better handled by the VRF functionality (which exists already). Notice you have both containers in the Global VRF. You could create a VRF with the name of the tenant if you need to break it up that way.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2020): I don't think Tenants are expected to be a border for overlapping prefixes. What you're describing would be better handled by the VRF functionality (which exists already). Notice you have both containers in the Global VRF. You could create a VRF with the name of the tenant if you need to break it up that way.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2020):

Looking at this further, I agree with @tyler-8. This is really the exact function VRFs are intended to serve. Will leave this open for discussion for a bit.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2020): Looking at this further, I agree with @tyler-8. This is really the exact function VRFs are intended to serve. Will leave this open for discussion for a bit.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arjenvri commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2020):

Okay, I guess that will also work in many cases. I was assuming tenant to be useful for segregation also when no VRFs are actually in use in different locations. But we could make "dummy vrfs".

@arjenvri commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2020): Okay, I guess that will also work in many cases. I was assuming tenant to be useful for segregation also when no VRFs are actually in use in different locations. But we could make "dummy vrfs".
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:25:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2020):

I think the tenancy system is meant to be administrative. The tenancy of an IP is indicative of who owns or uses it.

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2020): I think the tenancy system is meant to be administrative. The tenancy of an IP is indicative of who owns or uses 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
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#3060
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?