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

Enforce VLAN scoping and allow scope type of device #6008

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:35:39 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:39 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.1.6

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

  • Enforce VLAN scope by not allowing range overlap if one or more groups are assigned to the same scope. (i.e. two groups assigned to scope rack and the same rack);
  • Create the scope device and allow assigning VLAN groups to devices.

Use case

We use the so called "blackhole VLANs" as the native VLAN for ports that only have a tagged VLAN associated with them and as such they only exist within the scope of said device, hence the need for the new scope.

Enforcing the scope/range combination would allow you to create multiple groups for all devices that need them, but not allow you to reuse the same VLAN within that device.

This scales well as you would, for example, have a group for a particular site, it shouldn't allow you to create a new group scoped to the same site with the same VLAN range.

Database changes

Probably will need a new field to link VLAN groups to devices, but I haven't taken a deep dive into the current database structure to say with 100% certainty.

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.1.6 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality - Enforce VLAN scope by not allowing range overlap if one or more groups are assigned to the same scope. (i.e. two groups assigned to scope rack and the same rack); - Create the scope `device` and allow assigning VLAN groups to devices. ### Use case We use the so called "blackhole VLANs" as the native VLAN for ports that only have a tagged VLAN associated with them and as such they only exist within the scope of said device, hence the need for the new scope. Enforcing the scope/range combination would allow you to create multiple groups for all devices that need them, but not allow you to reuse the same VLAN within that device. This scales well as you would, for example, have a group for a particular site, it shouldn't allow you to create a new group scoped to the same site with the same VLAN range. ### Database changes Probably will need a new field to link VLAN groups to devices, but I haven't taken a deep dive into the current database structure to say with 100% certainty. ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 19:35:39 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:35:39 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022):

I should point out that this is taking into consideration this #8168 issue that implements the range as a feature.

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022): I should point out that this is taking into consideration this #8168 issue that implements the range as a feature.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022):

Now that I'm thinking about it, it would make sense to rename "VLAN Group" to "VLAN Range" and add a "VLAN Group" to be purely organizational with a parent field, for example:

  • VLAN Group
    -- Name: BKHL
    -- Parent: None
    -- Description: Blackhole VLANs
    -- Tags: None

  • VLAN Group
    -- Name: BKHL-VTA01
    -- Parent: BKHL
    -- Description: Newport Blackhole VLANs
    -- Tags: None

  • VLAN Range
    -- Name: BKHL-VTA01-SWT-01
    -- VLAN Group: BKHL-VTA01
    -- Scope type: DCIM > device
    -- Device: VTA01-SWT-01

  • VLAN
    -- Range scope: Device
    -- VLAN Range: BKHL-VTA01-SWT-01

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Jan 27, 2022): Now that I'm thinking about it, it would make sense to rename "VLAN Group" to "VLAN Range" and add a "VLAN Group" to be purely organizational with a parent field, for example: - VLAN Group -- Name: `BKHL` -- Parent: `None` -- Description: `Blackhole VLANs` -- Tags: `None` - VLAN Group -- Name: `BKHL-VTA01` -- Parent: `BKHL` -- Description: `Newport Blackhole VLANs` -- Tags: `None` - VLAN Range -- Name: `BKHL-VTA01-SWT-01` -- VLAN Group: `BKHL-VTA01` -- Scope type: `DCIM > device` -- Device: `VTA01-SWT-01` - VLAN -- Range scope: `Device` -- VLAN Range: `BKHL-VTA01-SWT-01`
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:35:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 29, 2022):

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 (Mar 29, 2022): 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 19:35:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2022):

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 (Apr 30, 2022): 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#6008
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?