starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Modeling SLAAC #3610

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:30:08 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:08 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (Apr 26, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.3
  • NetBox version: 2.8.1

Proposed Functionality

An additional Status for IP addresses: SLAAC

Use Case

I have some long-lived VMs (in this case, at Linode) that have their primary IPv6 addresses assigned via SLAAC. This can be somewhat accurately modeled via the ‘Active’ status, but given that ‘DHCP’ is an available status, I’m wondering why ‘SLAAC’ isn’t an option?

Database Changes

I assume this requires adding a choice in the Status field.

External Dependencies

N/A

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (Apr 26, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. This form is only for proposing specific new features or enhancements. If you have a general idea or question, please post to our mailing list instead of opening an issue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss NOTE: Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which significantly extend NetBox's feature scope. 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: 3.7.3 * NetBox version: 2.8.1 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality An additional Status for IP addresses: SLAAC <!-- Convey an example use case for your proposed feature. Write from the perspective of a NetBox user who would benefit from the proposed functionality and describe how. ---> ### Use Case I have some long-lived VMs (in this case, at Linode) that have their primary IPv6 addresses assigned via SLAAC. This can be somewhat accurately modeled via the ‘Active’ status, but given that ‘DHCP’ is an available status, I’m wondering why ‘SLAAC’ isn’t an option? <!-- Note any changes to the database schema necessary to support the new feature. For example, does the proposal require adding a new model or field? (Not all new features require database changes.) ---> ### Database Changes I assume this requires adding a choice in the Status field. <!-- List any new dependencies on external libraries or services that this new feature would introduce. For example, does the proposal require the installation of a new Python package? (Not all new features introduce new dependencies.) --> ### External Dependencies N/A
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:30:08 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2020):

I would assume most people don't track SLAAC addresses in NetBox given their ephemeral nature. Unlike DHCP-assigned addresses, which must be administratively declared before they can be issued, SLAAC addresses are generated on-demand by each client locally using a process that's highly dependent on the presence of a pseudorandom identifier (typically a MAC address). Given that this identifier is subject to change without notice, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to populate SLAAC IPs in NetBox.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2020): I would assume most people don't track SLAAC addresses in NetBox given their ephemeral nature. Unlike DHCP-assigned addresses, which must be administratively declared before they can be issued, SLAAC addresses are generated on-demand by each client locally using a process that's highly dependent on the presence of a pseudorandom identifier (typically a MAC address). Given that this identifier is subject to change without notice, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to populate SLAAC IPs in NetBox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2020):

I completely agree with you in principle.

Do the maintainers feel that ‘Active’ is sufficiently accurate to describe these addresses? If yes, I don’t think I could mount a reasonable counter-argument other than it being technically inaccurate, but not having any real operational impact because as you’ve said, most of the time the addresses are too ephemeral for anyone to care.

I’ve brought up the question because I’m documenting it in my network, and I don’t believe it’s been discussed before.

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2020): I completely agree with you in principle. Do the maintainers feel that ‘Active’ is sufficiently accurate to describe these addresses? If yes, I don’t think I could mount a reasonable counter-argument other than it being technically inaccurate, but not having any real operational impact because as you’ve said, most of the time the addresses are too ephemeral for anyone to care. I’ve brought up the question because I’m documenting it in my network, and I don’t believe it’s been discussed before.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020):

Hmmmm. I have used SLAAC for servers in the past, and always regretted it. Situations like replacing a faulty network adapter in the middle of the night and then forget that now a bunch of DNS records need to be adjusted etc.

I see no harm in adding an option for SLAAC, but I am not sure if it would be used a lot. Maybe adding a more generic "Autoconfig" option would make it slightly more useful for more people?

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020): Hmmmm. I have used SLAAC for servers in the past, and always regretted it. Situations like replacing a faulty network adapter in the middle of the night and then forget that now a bunch of DNS records need to be adjusted etc. I see no harm in adding an option for SLAAC, but I am not sure if it would be used a lot. Maybe adding a more generic "Autoconfig" option would make it slightly more useful for more people?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020):

Maybe adding a more generic "Autoconfig" option would make it slightly more useful for more people?

That sounds great! Like I said above, I’m not using it by choice, just want to be able to more accurately document what exists.

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020): > Maybe adding a more generic "Autoconfig" option would make it slightly more useful for more people? That sounds great! Like I said above, I’m not using it by choice, just want to be able to more accurately document what exists.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2020):

@jeremystretch Thank you for adding this! Should there be any type of validation that occurs when using the status to ensure it’s not incorrectly used with IPv4 addresses? Or is this such an edge case that we can safely ignore that?

@abrahamvegh commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2020): @jeremystretch Thank you for adding this! Should there be any type of validation that occurs when using the status to ensure it’s not incorrectly used with IPv4 addresses? Or is this such an edge case that we can safely ignore that?
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#3610
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?