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

Routing Features #4913

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:22:12 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lilmike1464 on GitHub (May 16, 2021).

NetBox version

v2.11

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

For device interfaces, change "802.1Q Mode" to:
Mode:

  • Routed
    • PTP # Uses IP Unnumbered, mainly from Loopback addresses now a days
    • Broadcast # Has an IP address directly on the interface
  • 802.1Q
    • Access
    • Tagged
    • Tagged (All)

Then allow a virtual interface to be assigned to multiple parent interfaces. The preference would b:
Virtual Interface: Loopback0
IP Address: 192.168.1.0/32
Parent Interfaces: Eth1/1, Eth1/2

Parent Interface: Eth1/1
Mode: routed --> PTP
Type: IP Virtual

Use case

A lot of ISPs and data centers are now using IP Unnumbered for their MPLS and VxLAN Underlays. It would be helpful to be able to define links between Top of rack switches and aggregate switches as such. Multiple routing protocols use IP Unnumbered.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @lilmike1464 on GitHub (May 16, 2021). ### NetBox version v2.11 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality For device interfaces, change "802.1Q Mode" to: Mode: - Routed - PTP # Uses IP Unnumbered, mainly from Loopback addresses now a days - Broadcast # Has an IP address directly on the interface - 802.1Q - Access - Tagged - Tagged (All) Then allow a virtual interface to be assigned to multiple parent interfaces. The preference would b: Virtual Interface: Loopback0 IP Address: 192.168.1.0/32 Parent Interfaces: Eth1/1, Eth1/2 Parent Interface: Eth1/1 Mode: routed --> PTP Type: IP Virtual ### Use case A lot of ISPs and data centers are now using IP Unnumbered for their MPLS and VxLAN Underlays. It would be helpful to be able to define links between Top of rack switches and aggregate switches as such. Multiple routing protocols use IP Unnumbered. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 19:22:12 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:22:12 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 17, 2021):

I still don't think we need routed mode based on the use-case described here.

Routed mode is implied when there isn't a 802.1q mode and the specific "mode" (broadcast/p2p) is implied based on the mask and/or connection. If you have a virtual interface assigned to two physical interfaces, you can derive the configuration from that as well.

That said, one thing that isn't modelled well is a routed sub-interface as we currently have no way to capture the dot1q tag in a routed subinterface without marking it as a dot1q interface.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 17, 2021): I still don't think we need routed mode based on the use-case described here. Routed mode is implied when there isn't a 802.1q mode and the specific "mode" (broadcast/p2p) is implied based on the mask and/or connection. If you have a virtual interface assigned to two physical interfaces, you can derive the configuration from that as well. That said, one thing that isn't modelled well is a routed sub-interface as we currently have no way to capture the dot1q tag in a routed subinterface without marking it as a dot1q interface.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2021):

PTP # Uses IP Unnumbered, mainly from Loopback addresses now a days

This is heavily opinionated. An interface's treatment as point-to-point is a function of the address applied, rather than its "mode" as defined in NetBox. For example, you might have an 802.1Q-encapsulated point-to-point interface.

That said, one thing that isn't modelled well is a routed sub-interface as we currently have no way to capture the dot1q tag in a routed subinterface without marking it as a dot1q interface.

Why wouldn't you just define the subinterface as access mode for the assigned VLAN?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2021): > PTP # Uses IP Unnumbered, mainly from Loopback addresses now a days This is heavily opinionated. An interface's treatment as point-to-point is a function of the address applied, rather than its "mode" as defined in NetBox. For example, you might have an 802.1Q-encapsulated point-to-point interface. > That said, one thing that isn't modelled well is a routed sub-interface as we currently have no way to capture the dot1q tag in a routed subinterface without marking it as a dot1q interface. Why wouldn't you just define the subinterface as access mode for the assigned VLAN?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Why wouldn't you just define the subinterface as access mode for the assigned VLAN?

The answer here would depend on the definition of a VLAN. NetBox's model conflates a VLAN with an 802.1q tag, but this is not necessarily the case in real network operation. Especially if you're utilizing things like QinQ and tag re-writes, or Layer 3 sub interfaces. It is entirely possible to have a device with five physical interfaces with a subinterface on each of those physical interfaces and those subinterfaces utilize the same 802.1q tag. That does not mean that those interfaces bridge into the same bridge domain. In fact, they wouldn't bridge at all. But without some external understanding of the device you model 5 interfaces that bridge into the same VLAN by applying a VLAN object. Or you end up creating 5 unique but otherwise pretty indiscernible VLAN objects, one per subinterface.

Personally I think deriving the "routed" mode from the fact that the interface has no 802.1q mode is fine and pretty intuitive. That same implicit information could be maintained by having "dot1q_tag" as a property of a sub interface. That property can be set manually, or implicitly overridden by setting the interface to 802.1q (tagged or untagged) mode which would then imply bridging.

@kvondersaar commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021): > Why wouldn't you just define the subinterface as access mode for the assigned VLAN? The answer here would depend on the definition of a VLAN. NetBox's model conflates a VLAN with an 802.1q tag, but this is not necessarily the case in real network operation. Especially if you're utilizing things like QinQ and tag re-writes, or Layer 3 sub interfaces. It is entirely possible to have a device with five physical interfaces with a subinterface on each of those physical interfaces and those subinterfaces utilize the same 802.1q tag. That does not mean that those interfaces bridge into the same bridge domain. In fact, they wouldn't bridge at all. But without some external understanding of the device you model 5 interfaces that bridge into the same VLAN by applying a VLAN object. Or you end up creating 5 unique but otherwise pretty indiscernible VLAN objects, one per subinterface. Personally I think deriving the "routed" mode from the fact that the interface has no 802.1q mode is fine and pretty intuitive. That same implicit information could be maintained by having "dot1q_tag" as a property of a sub interface. That property can be set manually, or implicitly overridden by setting the interface to 802.1q (tagged or untagged) mode which would then imply bridging.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 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.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 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 19:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 17, 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.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 17, 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 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#4913
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?