Allow prefixes to be assigned to a site group, region, site, or location #4908

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 13, 2021):

I think it makes a lot of sense to bring prefix scoping inline with what we did for VLAN groups in v2.11 (#5284).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 13, 2021): I think it makes a lot of sense to bring prefix scoping inline with what we did for VLAN groups in v2.11 (#5284).

adam commented

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021):

Marking as blocked until we figure out whether there's a more optimal way to track multi-model parent assignments (see #6440).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021): Marking as blocked until we figure out whether there's a more optimal way to track multi-model parent assignments (see #6440).

adam commented

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2021):

Extending this to also support the assignment of a prefix to a region as originally proposed under #5788.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2021): Extending this to also support the assignment of a prefix to a region as originally proposed under #5788.

adam commented

@firstkevinds commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021):

What about changing Sites to be 'tags' so that multiple sites can be tagged for a prefix?

If doing this, one wouldn't be able to downgrade versions after the upgrade script converts the database.

@firstkevinds commented on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021): What about changing Sites to be 'tags' so that multiple sites can be tagged for a prefix? If doing this, one wouldn't be able to downgrade versions after the upgrade script converts the database.

adam commented

@bsakdol commented on GitHub (Oct 21, 2021):

Based on comments, it appears this issue has been marked as blocked, pending #6440. That ticket has since gone stale, so I am hoping this one does not have the same fate. I suspect being able to assign prefixes to regions and site groups would alleviate some of the pain of not being able to collapse prefixes anymore. We are currently able to filter by max length and max depth to have a similar experience to the old collapsed prefixes functionality, but those filters are not available for all prefix views (in my case, specifically when viewing large summary prefixes covering multiple sites).

@bsakdol commented on GitHub (Oct 21, 2021): Based on comments, it appears this issue has been marked as blocked, pending #6440. That ticket has since gone stale, so I am hoping this one does not have the same fate. I suspect being able to assign prefixes to regions and site groups would alleviate some of the pain of not being able to collapse prefixes anymore. We are currently able to filter by `max length` and `max depth` to have a similar experience to the old collapsed prefixes functionality, but those filters are not available for all prefix views (in my case, specifically when viewing large summary prefixes covering multiple `sites`).

adam commented

@thomseddon commented on GitHub (Feb 5, 2022):

As an ISP this is quite important to us (we have many sites, we arrange our management networks hierarchically and geographically e.g. Country > Metro/City > Town/Area > Site). We can manage our hierarchy by using nested regions but we therefore want to make it easy to determine from which container prefix a site prefix should be allocated. Without the ability to assign a prefix to a region, it's not so easy to determine.
The issue this was marked as being blocked by is now closed, it appears that dependancy was more of a "nice to have" as opposed to a technical blocker.
Without any objection to the principle so far, would you accept a PR on this?

@thomseddon commented on GitHub (Feb 5, 2022): As an ISP this is quite important to us (we have many sites, we arrange our management networks hierarchically and geographically e.g. Country > Metro/City > Town/Area > Site). We can manage our hierarchy by using nested regions but we therefore want to make it easy to determine from which container prefix a site prefix should be allocated. Without the ability to assign a prefix to a region, it's not so easy to determine. The issue this was marked as being blocked by is now closed, it appears that dependancy was more of a "nice to have" as opposed to a technical blocker. Without any objection to the principle so far, would you accept a PR on this?

adam commented

@AnythingOverIP commented on GitHub (Mar 29, 2022):

In our case, we have hundreds of sites that are linked together by either black fiber, microwave or MPLS. All of them, apart a few exceptions, have 2 or more P2P links. Each of those links have a /30 or /31 prefix assigned to it. Having to create a site group for every uplink would be hard to maintain. I wish we could assign sites to prefixes, without having to create a site group. In the end, I would like to see, when visiting a site page, all information regarding that site, including those site-shared prefixes.

@AnythingOverIP commented on GitHub (Mar 29, 2022): In our case, we have hundreds of sites that are linked together by either black fiber, microwave or MPLS. All of them, apart a few exceptions, have 2 or more P2P links. Each of those links have a /30 or /31 prefix assigned to it. Having to create a site group for every uplink would be hard to maintain. I wish we could assign sites to prefixes, without having to create a site group. In the end, I would like to see, when visiting a site page, all information regarding that site, including those site-shared prefixes.

adam commented

@jefvantongerloo commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022):

+1 for this implementation.
Need a solution for stretched datacenter.

@jefvantongerloo commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022): +1 for this implementation. Need a solution for stretched datacenter.

adam commented

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023):

This could be a good candidate for 3.6

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023): This could be a good candidate for 3.6

adam commented

@voolean commented on GitHub (Nov 16, 2023):

+1
We need prefix assignments to a SITE-GROUP but also a REGION. Reasons are mentioned and explained above already.

I'd propose to uniform virtual object scoping mechanism in general. I will open a similar feature request for cluster and vlans assignments as well. Currently we have two types of assignments:

objects with SITE assignment only like vlans, cluster, prefix
objects with SCOPE assigment: vlan-group,bgp, BGP-pool
Proposed solution: apply "vlan-group scoping" to vlans, prefix and clusters as well.

@voolean commented on GitHub (Nov 16, 2023): +1 We need prefix assignments to a SITE-GROUP but also a REGION. Reasons are mentioned and explained above already. I'd propose to uniform virtual object scoping mechanism in general. I will open a similar feature request for cluster and vlans assignments as well. Currently we have two types of assignments: 1. objects with SITE assignment only like vlans, cluster, prefix 2. objects with SCOPE assigment: vlan-group,bgp, BGP-pool Proposed solution: apply "vlan-group scoping" to vlans, prefix and clusters as well.

adam commented

@ChrisHills463 commented on GitHub (May 8, 2024):

+1

Logically, our customer prefixes are associated with a region, which contains multiple sites (active/active). These are advertised to our neighbours with a bgp community for the region.

@ChrisHills463 commented on GitHub (May 8, 2024): +1 Logically, our customer prefixes are associated with a region, which contains multiple sites (active/active). These are advertised to our neighbours with a bgp community for the region.

adam commented

@PeterG3 commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

Will create a PR, first draft seems to work but needs more effort

@PeterG3 commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): Will create a PR, first draft seems to work but needs more effort

adam commented

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

Will create a PR, first draft seems to work but needs more effort

I would suggest holding off. This is on our backlog and we need to review it for more implementation details and to determine a release.

As an example, I see you have your base set to the current 4.0.5. Since there will be breaking changes to the way scoping is done, coupled with API changes, this would likely need to be based against the feature branch.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): > Will create a PR, first draft seems to work but needs more effort I would suggest holding off. This is on our backlog and we need to review it for more implementation details and to determine a release. As an example, I see you have your base set to the current 4.0.5. Since there will be breaking changes to the way scoping is done, coupled with API changes, this would likely need to be based against the feature branch.

adam commented

@PeterG3 commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

Thanks for the information and yes I will pause. I just wanted to advance and happy to see some progress here since our organization is kind of blocked right now.

@PeterG3 commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): Thanks for the information and yes I will pause. I just wanted to advance and happy to see some progress here since our organization is kind of blocked right now.

adam commented

@lucasalvatore commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2024):

hey all... i opened this back in 2021 and at least once a month i wish this was a thing. Seems there is many others who would benefit from it.... curious if the maintainers have discussed this and have some idea of when / if it could be implemented.

@lucasalvatore commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2024): hey all... i opened this back in 2021 and at least once a month i wish this was a thing. Seems there is many others who would benefit from it.... curious if the maintainers have discussed this and have some idea of when / if it could be implemented.

adam commented

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 25, 2024):

Unfortunately this community has far more people wishing for features than it does building them. If anyone is interested in helping with the later, there are currently 73 issues in need of an owner.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 25, 2024): Unfortunately this community has far more people wishing for features than it does building them. If anyone is interested in helping with the later, there are currently [73 issues in need of an owner](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22status%3A+needs+owner%22).

adam commented