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

Allow non-unique VLAN names within a VLAN group #6794

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:45:27 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:45:27 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tea-zup on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022).

NetBox version

v.3.2.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

On IPAM -> VLAN Groups it would be nice to have ID + group as a unique set instead of name + group. I have three vlan segments and in these segments I distinguish vlans by IDs. Multiple vlans in one segment have the same name but different IDs. Therefore they can't be added to the same vlan group. Having ID + group as a unique set would fix my problem. Changing vlan names on switches would be a lot more work.
Is there currently any other way around this problem in Netbox? A similar issue has already been mentioned in #1823.

Thanks for all your help.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @tea-zup on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022). ### NetBox version v.3.2.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality On IPAM -> VLAN Groups it would be nice to have ID + group as a unique set instead of name + group. I have three vlan segments and in these segments I distinguish vlans by IDs. Multiple vlans in one segment have the same name but different IDs. Therefore they can't be added to the same vlan group. Having ID + group as a unique set would fix my problem. Changing vlan names on switches would be a lot more work. Is there currently any other way around this problem in Netbox? A similar issue has already been mentioned in [#1823](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/1823). Thanks for all your help. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 19:45:27 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:45:27 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:45:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022):

So I think it all depends on the platform you use and how you are using Netbox to Automate. Cisco for example, uniqueneess on both vid+group and name+group make sense because you can't have overlapping VID's but Cisco will also not let you have naming collisions.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022): So I think it all depends on the platform you use and how you are using Netbox to Automate. Cisco for example, uniqueneess on both vid+group and name+group make sense because you can't have overlapping VID's but Cisco will also not let you have naming collisions.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:45:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022):

It would be useful to have ID + group as a unique identifier of vlan groups instead of name + group. It would be possible to add vlans to groups for those who identify vlans by ID and not by name.

You've just reiterated the proposal above. What is your actual use case?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 10, 2022): > It would be useful to have ID + group as a unique identifier of vlan groups instead of name + group. It would be possible to add vlans to groups for those who identify vlans by ID and not by name. You've just reiterated the proposal above. What is your actual use case?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:45:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tea-zup commented on GitHub (Aug 12, 2022):

Solved the problem by using tags instead of VLAN groups. Thanks anyway :)

@tea-zup commented on GitHub (Aug 12, 2022): Solved the problem by using tags instead of VLAN groups. Thanks anyway :)
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: revisions needed 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#6794
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?