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 allows creation of IPAddresses with '0' mask length #3134

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:26:00 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:00 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tyler-8 on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.8
  • NetBox version: v2.6.7

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create an IP address with a /0 mask

Expected Behavior

Validation error returned in form when trying to create an IP address with a mask of 0.

Observed Behavior

Netbox GUI times out and returns HTTP 504 while trying to load IPAddress detail page. You can see the IP is successfully created in the changelog, but any attempt to view the detail page times out with a reasonable nginx/gunicorn worker timeout (<60 seconds).

Originally created by @tyler-8 on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020). <!-- 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: 3.6.8<!-- Example: 3.5.4 --> * NetBox version: v2.6.7<!-- Example: 2.5.2 --> <!-- 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 1. Create an IP address with a `/0` mask <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior Validation error returned in form when trying to create an IP address with a mask of 0. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior Netbox GUI times out and returns HTTP 504 while trying to load IPAddress detail page. You can see the IP is successfully created in the changelog, but any attempt to view the detail page times out with a reasonable nginx/gunicorn worker timeout (<60 seconds).
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 18:26:00 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:26:00 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020):

I couldn't replicate this on a fresh install of v2.6.7 or v2.6.11 (httpd/gunicorn). I was able to create an IP address with a /0 mask and I can browse to it and do everything as usual. Anything special about the deployment?

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020): I couldn't replicate this on a fresh install of v2.6.7 or v2.6.11 (httpd/gunicorn). I was able to create an IP address with a `/0` mask and I can browse to it and do everything as usual. Anything special about the deployment?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I suspect you may not see this behavior on a fresh install. The issue (I'm guessing) is that since all the IP/prefix relationships are done in CPU - and when you have a large number of prefixes and IP addresses, the calculation for a /0 takes an enormous amount of time.

And since the calculation is single-threaded, there's no speeding it up by increasing worker counts. The only solution would then be to increase the gunicorn/nginx worker timeout to some absurdly high number - but anything higher than 60s for a synchronous user-interactive webapp is... not ideal.

This dev environment has the gunicorn worker set for 120s timeout and it's getting hit every time.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020): I suspect you may not see this behavior on a fresh install. The issue (I'm guessing) is that since all the IP/prefix relationships are done in CPU - and when you have a large number of prefixes and IP addresses, the calculation for a `/0` takes an enormous amount of time. And since the calculation is single-threaded, there's no speeding it up by increasing worker counts. The only solution would then be to increase the gunicorn/nginx worker timeout to some absurdly high number - but anything higher than 60s for a synchronous user-interactive webapp is... not ideal. This dev environment has the gunicorn worker set for 120s timeout and it's getting hit every time.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020):

I'll generate some dummy addresses and give it another try. How many addresses do you have?

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020): I'll generate some dummy addresses and give it another try. How many addresses do you have?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

IP Addresses:     169,115
Prefixes:          36,082
@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020): ``` IP Addresses: 169,115 Prefixes: 36,082 ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

The API returns a response immediately so this is definitely an issue with the IP/Prefix calculations. Those aren't shown in the IP address detail output.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2020): The API returns a response immediately so this is definitely an issue with the IP/Prefix calculations. Those aren't shown in the IP address detail output.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Now that I've got 200k+ addresses, I can see what you're referring to. It doesn't even need to be a /0 address, though that one is particularly dangerous as it includes everything.

It's the related IPs table that kills it as it has no limit on the table size, so it tries to render every single address.

Adding a limit or paginating the table minimizes these effects. The former is faster (practically the same as having no related IPs) than the latter (probably because there's far less data to process from the DB).

Personally, I'd go with the limit because it's pretty odd for someone to accurately use that table for anything functional. Like if we paginated the table, who's gonna be like "yeah, let me just go to page 9 of 80, which I'm sure is where that one related IP that I'm looking for is at".

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2020): Now that I've got 200k+ addresses, I can see what you're referring to. It doesn't even need to be a `/0` address, though that one is particularly dangerous as it includes everything. It's the related IPs table that kills it as it has no limit on the table size, so it tries to render every single address. Adding a limit or paginating the table minimizes these effects. The former is faster (practically the same as having no related IPs) than the latter (probably because there's far less data to process from the DB). Personally, I'd go with the limit because it's pretty odd for someone to accurately use that table for anything functional. Like if we paginated the table, who's gonna be like "yeah, let me just go to page 9 of 80, which I'm sure is where that one related IP that I'm looking for is at".
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: bug
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#3134
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?