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

Consistent available prefix presentation in sub-prefixes #4320

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:34:43 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:43 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @martinkiska on GitHub (Dec 1, 2020).

Environment

Python version: 2.7.5
NetBox version: 2.9.3

Steps to Reproduce

  1. create 10.64.0.0/16 prefix, afterwards create another sub-prefix 10.64.0.0/24 and allocate few prefixes in 10.64.0.0/24 space. When doing so you will not be able to see those available prefixes in 10.64.0.0/16 master prefix. Please check attached picture or comments in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/5158#issuecomment-735601563

image

Expected Behavior

I expect consistent behavior -> if netbox is showing available prefixes for parent prefix, it should also show available prefixes for sub-parent prefixes. Current output is confusing causing people to think, that sub-prefix is fully allocated without available prefixes.

Observed Behavior

I see available prefixes only in parent prefix - while going through the GUI we have inconsistent information regarding available prefixes allocation.

Originally created by @martinkiska on GitHub (Dec 1, 2020). ### Environment Python version: 2.7.5 NetBox version: 2.9.3 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. create 10.64.0.0/16 prefix, afterwards create another sub-prefix 10.64.0.0/24 and allocate few prefixes in 10.64.0.0/24 space. When doing so you will not be able to see those available prefixes in 10.64.0.0/16 master prefix. Please check attached picture or comments in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/5158#issuecomment-735601563 ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/75117548/100732737-7047d480-33cd-11eb-9008-1d388bb6c8fb.png) ### Expected Behavior I expect consistent behavior -> if netbox is showing available prefixes for parent prefix, it should also show available prefixes for sub-parent prefixes. Current output is confusing causing people to think, that sub-prefix is fully allocated without available prefixes. ### Observed Behavior I see available prefixes only in parent prefix - while going through the GUI we have inconsistent information regarding available prefixes allocation.
adam added the pending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 18:34:43 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:34:43 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020):

When doing so you will not be able to see those available prefixes in 10.64.0.0/16 master prefix.

IMO this is preferable behavior. Within the context of the prefix being viewed (10.64.0.0/16), all of 10.64.0.0/24 has been allocated. To see available space within that prefix, view the prefix's children.

We wouldn't want to display space available within child prefixes, because it would very often be distracting. Consider a scenario where each site gets a /24 out of a /16. When looking for available space for a new site, you don't want to see space available within each /24, because it's not relevant and would only take up space on the page.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2020): > When doing so you will not be able to see those available prefixes in 10.64.0.0/16 master prefix. IMO this is preferable behavior. Within the context of the prefix being viewed (10.64.0.0/16), all of 10.64.0.0/24 has been allocated. To see available space within that prefix, view the prefix's children. We wouldn't want to display space available within child prefixes, because it would very often be distracting. Consider a scenario where each site gets a /24 out of a /16. When looking for available space for a new site, you don't want to see space available within each /24, because it's not relevant and would only take up space on the page.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2021):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 17, 2021): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2021):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2021): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure status: under review
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#4320
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?