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

Utilization can push up to 200% #5101

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:24:14 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:14 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @c-po on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v2.11.9

Python version

3.6

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a new prefix 192.0.2.0/30
  2. Import IP addresses via https:///ipam/ip-addresses/import/
address
192.0.2.0/30
192.0.2.1/30
192.0.2.2/30
192.0.2.3/30

Expected Behavior

An error should be raised as 192.0.2.0/30 and 192.0.2.3/30 are no host addresses

Observed Behavior

image

image

Originally created by @c-po on GitHub (Jul 26, 2021). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v2.11.9 ### Python version 3.6 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a new prefix `192.0.2.0/30` 2. Import IP addresses via https://<netbox>/ipam/ip-addresses/import/ ``` address 192.0.2.0/30 192.0.2.1/30 192.0.2.2/30 192.0.2.3/30 ``` ### Expected Behavior An error should be raised as 192.0.2.0/30 and 192.0.2.3/30 are no host addresses ### Observed Behavior ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25299219/126975120-05b0549a-85f4-42b6-bc3f-cd998c8f1ef3.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25299219/126975144-e0dbd4d1-8175-45c3-826a-5a179b287a33.png)
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 19:24:14 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:24:15 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021):

I don't think we should block the creation of these (subnet/broadcast) IP's. The creation of them might very well be intended to do just that: reflect how the IP's are behaving. Nice excercise for the new 'CustomValidator' hooks :-)

A utilization above 100% does seem odd as well though. Maybe we could put an artificial limit on that number to cap it at 100?

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021): I don't think we should block the creation of these (subnet/broadcast) IP's. The creation of them might very well be intended to do just that: reflect how the IP's are behaving. Nice excercise for the [new 'CustomValidator' hooks](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/5963) :-) A utilization above 100% does seem odd as well though. Maybe we could put an artificial limit on that number to cap it at 100?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2021):

Capping it at 100% seems like the way to go.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2021): Capping it at 100% seems like the way to go.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@c-po commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2021):

@sdktr and @jeremystretch I agree that capping would also be a viable option if one want's to document those IP addresses.

What happens if the network and broadcast address is documented but two host addresses are still free? Will it show 100%, too?

Network and Broadcast addresses can be calculated, so I think the most effective way would be to not take them into account when calculating the host address usage in percent.

@c-po commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2021): @sdktr and @jeremystretch I agree that capping would also be a viable option if one want's to document those IP addresses. What happens if the network and broadcast address is documented but two host addresses are still free? Will it show 100%, too? Network and Broadcast addresses can be calculated, so I think the most effective way would be to not take them into account when calculating the host address usage in percent.
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: bug
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#5101
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?