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

/32 IP's not automatically represented in /32 subnet. #5014

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:23:10 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:10 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @darcynz on GitHub (Jun 21, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @WillIrvine on GitHub.

NetBox version

v2.11.7

Python version

3.7

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Have a /32 IP address,

  2. Create a /32 Subnet for that IP address

  3. In the new subnet on the IP addresses tab observe IP's.

Expected Behavior

IP address reference should be observed and not the ability to assign an IP address in the subnet.

Observed Behavior

'Available IP' Button is present instead of a reference to the IP address as per 1).

Originally created by @darcynz on GitHub (Jun 21, 2021). Originally assigned to: @WillIrvine on GitHub. ### NetBox version v2.11.7 ### Python version 3.7 ### Steps to Reproduce 1) Have a /32 IP address, 2) Create a /32 Subnet for that IP address 3) In the new subnet on the IP addresses tab observe IP's. ### Expected Behavior IP address reference should be observed and not the ability to assign an IP address in the subnet. ### Observed Behavior 'Available IP' Button is present instead of a reference to the IP address as per 1).
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:23:10 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:23:10 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Why shouldn't a user be able to create a /32 IP address for assignment to an interface in addition to a /32 route to advertise that address?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2021): Why shouldn't a user be able to create a /32 IP address for assignment to an interface in addition to a /32 route to advertise that address?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@WillIrvine commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2021):

I think the issue here is that the /32 IP address gets created in the /32 subnet, but then does not display when navigating back to the Subnet

Example:

  1. Make /32 Prefix

image

  1. Make /32 IP address within that prefix

image

  1. Go back to parent prefix, newly created IP address does not display under /32 prefixes IP address's, however IP address has been created.

image

@WillIrvine commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2021): I think the issue here is that the /32 IP address gets created in the /32 subnet, but then does not display when navigating back to the Subnet Example: 1. Make /32 Prefix ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32685892/122830132-03c9fe00-d33c-11eb-8810-e45c5e5680d5.png) 2. Make /32 IP address within that prefix ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32685892/122830200-1d6b4580-d33c-11eb-880d-d052227ebd61.png) 3. Go back to parent prefix, newly created IP address does not display under /32 prefixes IP address's, however IP address has been created. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32685892/122830314-48559980-d33c-11eb-8413-ac92c17e607a.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@darcynz commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2021):

Sorry I should have included pictures. We have no issue with duplicate /32's just that they are not displaying within a subnet as per WillIrvine's images above.

@darcynz commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2021): Sorry I should have included pictures. We have no issue with duplicate /32's just that they are not displaying within a subnet as per WillIrvine's images above.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@WillIrvine commented on GitHub (Jun 23, 2021):

Hi

https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/6455#issuecomment-855275592

This solution seems to work and AFAIA does not look to cause any undesired issues.
This looks to however be more of a design question as expressed by Jeremy - Should a /32 Prefix contain a /32 IP.

I think it should as people are using IP's and Prefix's for separate purposes, and it maintains a familiar workflow to track both individually. But if not we should at least limit the UI from displaying that there is 1 available address within the prefix.

Happy to put in a PR for this if accepted.

@WillIrvine commented on GitHub (Jun 23, 2021): Hi https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/6455#issuecomment-855275592 This solution seems to work and AFAIA does not look to cause any undesired issues. This looks to however be more of a design question as expressed by Jeremy - Should a /32 Prefix contain a /32 IP. I think it should as people are using IP's and Prefix's for separate purposes, and it maintains a familiar workflow to track both individually. But if not we should at least limit the UI from displaying that there is 1 available address within the prefix. Happy to put in a PR for this if accepted.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stevenmyhre commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2021):

I also ran into this. We are using prefixes to document NAT translations (even though netbox doesn't support it specifically), and, it's perfectly valid to have a 1-1 nat with a /32 prefix, i.e. 1-1 NAT. However, the single IP Address in the prefix gets lost the way it is coded currently.

@stevenmyhre commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2021): I also ran into this. We are using prefixes to document NAT translations (even though netbox doesn't support it specifically), and, it's perfectly valid to have a 1-1 nat with a /32 prefix, i.e. 1-1 NAT. However, the single IP Address in the prefix gets lost the way it is coded currently.
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: accepted 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#5014
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?