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

Support for Bridge type interfaces #4051

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:32:51 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:51 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ChrisPortman on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.*
  • NetBox version: 2.9

Proposed Functionality

Add a new interface type "Bridge" to devices and virtual machines.
A bridge interface would be distinct from other types in that they can have member interfaces of any type including standard physical, virtual and LAGs.

A previous FR for a bridge form factor was rejected citing the use of virtual interfaces to represent bridges.
However, virtual interfaces do not have "member interfaces". This is an important distinction as on many many
setups, IP addresses are configured on the bridge interface, not the member interface, and thus the link from IP address though
to physical is lost.

I had tried to represent a Bridge using a LAG with a naming convention. However you can not add virtual interfaces (e.g. eth0.100) to a LAG.

Use Case

Given an example of a virualization host where external interfaces are added to a bridge that connects virtual machines.

device:
    br100 (bridge, has IP address):  
        - bond0.100
    br200 (bridge, has IP address):  
        - bond0.200
    br300 (bridge, has IP address):
        - eth3
        - eth4

    bond0.100 (virtual)
    bond0.200 (virtual)

    bond0 {LAG):
        - eth0
        - eth1

You could, in a pinch, use sensible naming patterns to make the relationships obvious to a human, however, it would very difficult and hacky to try to programmatically consume the information via the API and recreate the intended setup.

Originally created by @ChrisPortman on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: 3.* * NetBox version: 2.9 ### Proposed Functionality Add a new interface type "Bridge" to devices and virtual machines. A bridge interface would be distinct from other types in that they can have member interfaces of any type including standard physical, virtual and LAGs. A previous FR for a bridge form factor was rejected citing the use of virtual interfaces to represent bridges. However, virtual interfaces do not have "member interfaces". This is an important distinction as on many many setups, IP addresses are configured on the bridge interface, not the member interface, and thus the link from IP address though to physical is lost. I had tried to represent a Bridge using a LAG with a naming convention. However you can not add virtual interfaces (e.g. eth0.100) to a LAG. ### Use Case Given an example of a virualization host where external interfaces are added to a bridge that connects virtual machines. ``` device: br100 (bridge, has IP address): - bond0.100 br200 (bridge, has IP address): - bond0.200 br300 (bridge, has IP address): - eth3 - eth4 bond0.100 (virtual) bond0.200 (virtual) bond0 {LAG): - eth0 - eth1 ``` You could, in a pinch, use sensible naming patterns to make the relationships obvious to a human, however, it would very difficult and hacky to try to programmatically consume the information via the API and recreate the intended setup.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 18:32:51 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:32:51 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020):

Thank you for submitting this issue, however it appears that this topic has already been raised. Please see issue #2242 for further discussion.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020): Thank you for submitting this issue, however it appears that this topic has already been raised. Please see issue #2242 for further discussion.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ChrisPortman commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020):

Hi, yes, I did make reference to the previous request (sorry should have quoted the issue #). This request includes a clear scenario that can not accurately be represented using virtual interfaces.

@ChrisPortman commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2020): Hi, yes, I did make reference to the previous request (sorry should have quoted the issue #). This request includes a clear scenario that can not accurately be represented using virtual interfaces.
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: duplicate
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#4051
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?