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

Do not consider as duplicated prefixes when status is different #7171

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:20:08 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:08 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mrlocke on GitHub (Oct 27, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.3.4

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

When VRF has set "Enforce unique space " do not consider as duplicate, prefixes with a status set to container, against prefixes with other possible statuses.

Use case

We are using status for prefixes set to Container to split VRF into different subspaces, Such as, per default in a VRF we may have prefixes reserved for networking purposes, other one for generic use, a different range for servers, etc... And later we split the container into subnets, as they are needed.

I understand that this is an intended use, as per documentation:

The "container" status indicates that the prefix exists merely as a container for organizing child prefixes.

But the problem comes when you want to create a subnet in a container the same size as a container. If VRF is set to "preserve unique space", it does not allow such thing, saying it is a duplicate. But in fact it is not a duplicate, cause a container is not a real prefix, it is just merely intended for organizational purposes, and in some situations it make sense to use the full container for containing an Active/Reserved/Deprecated prefix.

Use cases:

  • VRF planning consistency: Users may have a policy when all VRF they setup must have containers for several purposes, but sometimes it is not really necessary to split the container.
  • VRF organizational purpose: it make sense even if it contains only 1 prefix same size as container, as it may be in deprecated or reserved status, and later as needs evolves this prefix inside the container may be split or deleted, etc.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @mrlocke on GitHub (Oct 27, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.3.4 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality When VRF has set "Enforce unique space " do not consider as duplicate, prefixes with a status set to container, against prefixes with other possible statuses. ### Use case We are using status for prefixes set to **Container** to split VRF into different subspaces, Such as, per default in a VRF we may have prefixes reserved for networking purposes, other one for generic use, a different range for servers, etc... And later we split the container into subnets, as they are needed. I understand that this is an intended use, as per documentation: > The "container" status indicates that the prefix exists merely as a container for organizing child prefixes. But the problem comes when you want to create a subnet in a container the same size as a container. If VRF is set to "preserve unique space", it does not allow such thing, saying it is a duplicate. But in fact it is not a duplicate, cause a container is not a real prefix, it is just merely intended for organizational purposes, and in some situations it make sense to use the full container for containing an Active/Reserved/Deprecated prefix. Use cases: * VRF planning consistency: Users may have a policy when all VRF they setup must have containers for several purposes, but sometimes it is not really necessary to split the container. * VRF organizational purpose: it make sense even if it contains only 1 prefix same size as container, as it may be in deprecated or reserved status, and later as needs evolves this prefix inside the container may be split or deleted, etc. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 20:20:08 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:20:08 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 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. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 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. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mrlocke commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023):

Not sure if this should be classified as bug report, or feature. Can this be relabeled?

@mrlocke commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): Not sure if this should be classified as bug report, or feature. Can this be relabeled?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2023):

It's definitely not a bug, as NetBox is working as intended. Your use case doesn't make sense: There's no reason to define a prefix as both active and as a container.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2023): It's definitely not a bug, as NetBox is working as intended. Your use case doesn't make sense: There's no reason to define a prefix as both active and as a container.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2023):

Closing this for inactivity.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2023): Closing this for inactivity.
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#7171
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?