starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-02-26 10:44:57 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Assign configuration context using vlans #5505

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:28:46 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:28:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jcralbino on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021).

NetBox version

v3.0.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Currently we can assign a configuration context based in a number of fields as seen here:
image

I propose to allow the assignment of the configuration context also based in VLANs.

Use case

This can be used for example to document better static routes and other configuration parameters that are specific to a portion of the network( VLAN).

On use case for example in our environment we have a dedicated backup interface where servers should use this interface to perform backups only.
This requires static routing to be configured on this devices.

Database changes

none

External dependencies

none

Originally created by @jcralbino on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021). ### NetBox version v3.0.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Currently we can assign a configuration context based in a number of fields as seen here: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/44149262/136941660-8c52f540-9f0c-431d-afa6-bf0c72a5c0d2.png) I propose to allow the assignment of the configuration context also based in VLANs. ### Use case This can be used for example to document better static routes and other configuration parameters that are specific to a portion of the network( VLAN). On use case for example in our environment we have a dedicated backup interface where servers should use this interface to perform backups only. This requires static routing to be configured on this devices. ### Database changes none ### External dependencies none
adam added the type: featurestatus: duplicate labels 2025-12-29 19:28:46 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:28:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:28:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021):

You have already proposed this under #6340, and I explained that it is not feasible and will not be pursued. Please refrain from opening duplicate issues.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021): You have already proposed this under #6340, and I explained that it is not feasible and will not be pursued. Please refrain from opening duplicate issues.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:28:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jcralbino commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021):

Hello @jeremystretch
It's not the same as i proposed before

Here the configuration context is always associated with a device .

The feature request you mention was for assigning a configuration context to a vlan object.

Here the feature request is to assign a configuration context to a device based on the vlan assigned to the device.

@jcralbino commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021): Hello @jeremystretch It's not the same as i proposed before Here the configuration context is always associated with a device . The feature request you mention was for assigning a configuration context to a vlan object. Here the feature request is to assign a configuration context to a device based on the vlan assigned to the device.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:28:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021):

Per my comment on #6340:

Unfortunately I don't think this would be feasible, as there is (intentionally) no relationship from devices/VMs directly to VLANs. This precludes us from rendering config contexts as part of a device/VM queryset, which is a crucial function of the feature.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2021): Per [my comment](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/6340#issuecomment-853250277) on #6340: > Unfortunately I don't think this would be feasible, as there is (intentionally) no relationship from devices/VMs directly to VLANs. This precludes us from rendering config contexts as part of a device/VM queryset, which is a crucial function of the feature.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:28:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jcralbino commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2021):

Understood. Thanks for the clarification

@jcralbino commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2021): Understood. Thanks for the clarification
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: duplicate 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#5505
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?