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

Prefix overflow by IP Address Bulk Create #4336

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:34:55 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:55 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @fulhade on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.3
  • NetBox version: 2.9.10

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create one or more prefix. Ex: 192.168.1.0/29, 192.168.1.8/29, 192.168.16/29 with option: Is a pool = uncheck
  2. Create multiple IP address with Bulk Create: 192.168.1.[0-50]/29

Expected Behavior

  1. It should not be possible to create this range [0-50] with subnet mask /29. Or just not through Prefix menu. Perhaps something like: Create all usable IP address for this prefix?
  2. Bulk Create should not be able to create network and broadcast address for Prefix specified as not pool

Observed Behavior

I got 50 IP addresses. And 3 Prefix with network and broadcast addres. Also, prefix utilisation is 133% for this example.

Originally created by @fulhade on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020). <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. 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/g/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, and that any plugins have been disabled. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.7.3 * NetBox version: 2.9.10 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox. 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 client library such as pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create one or more prefix. Ex: 192.168.1.0/29, 192.168.1.8/29, 192.168.16/29 with option: Is a pool = uncheck 2. Create multiple IP address with Bulk Create: 192.168.1.[0-50]/29 <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior 1. It should not be possible to create this range [0-50] with subnet mask /29. Or just not through Prefix menu. Perhaps something like: Create all usable IP address for this prefix? 2. Bulk Create should not be able to create network and broadcast address for Prefix specified as not pool <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior I got 50 IP addresses. And 3 Prefix with network and broadcast addres. Also, prefix utilisation is 133% for this example.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:34:55 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020):

Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the feature request template. Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.

For further information, the IP address model mostly decoupled from the prefix model and likewise the functionality within most of these is also decoupled, such as prefixes and creation of addresses.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020): Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the [feature request template](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/new?template=feature_request.md). Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed. For further information, the IP address model mostly decoupled from the prefix model and likewise the functionality within most of these is also decoupled, such as prefixes and creation of addresses.
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#4336
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?