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

Tagged (ALL) exclude VLANs, Tagged Vlan Range #5026

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @de-Rick on GitHub (Jun 24, 2021).

NetBox version

v.2.11.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Sometimes you need to assign all the vlans available (in our usecase 50+) in your netbox project except for 1-2 Vlan-IDs. When you choose "Tagged (All)" this functionality is not implemented yet. Instead you have to add all the allowed vlans one by one to the Interface. After 10 VLANs-ID this really takes long. I tried to build custom field for it, but then it is not connected with the VLAN-IDs.

And it is also not possible to specify a VLAN-ID range for e.x 1-90 and 95-200. This could also be a solution for the "first issue"

Use case

It is possible to document the vlan-config more quickly. I think I am not the only one who would profit from this feature.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @de-Rick on GitHub (Jun 24, 2021). ### NetBox version v.2.11.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Sometimes you need to assign all the vlans available (in our usecase 50+) in your netbox project except for 1-2 Vlan-IDs. When you choose "Tagged (All)" this functionality is not implemented yet. Instead you have to add all the allowed vlans one by one to the Interface. After 10 VLANs-ID this really takes long. I tried to build custom field for it, but then it is not connected with the VLAN-IDs. And it is also not possible to specify a VLAN-ID range for e.x 1-90 and 95-200. This could also be a solution for the "first issue" ### Use case It is possible to document the vlan-config more quickly. I think I am not the only one who would profit from this feature. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2021):

We don't support this for several reasons:

  1. This approach is inherently error-prone. If a user adds a new VLAN within the allowed scope, it will be included automatically, whether or not that is intended.
  2. There is no reasonable way to declare the scope of permitted VLANs (e.g. by site or VLAN group).
  3. It would greatly complicate the modeling.
@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2021): We don't support this for several reasons: 1. This approach is inherently error-prone. If a user adds a new VLAN within the allowed scope, it will be included automatically, whether or not that is intended. 2. There is no reasonable way to declare the scope of permitted VLANs (e.g. by site or VLAN group). 3. It would greatly complicate the modeling.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:23:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 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 (Aug 29, 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 19:23:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 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 (Sep 28, 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#5026
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?