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 /32 (v4) and /128 (v6) prefixes #731

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:25:12 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @asenci on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017).

Is there any specific reason why Netbox won't allow /32 and /128 prefixes?
As far as I can tell from looking at the code, allowing ir would not have any impact on the project, also the test code do not cover this.

The use case for this would be to allocate prefixes for customers point-to-point links and loopback/anycast addresses.

Originally created by @asenci on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017). Is there any specific reason why Netbox won't allow /32 and /128 prefixes? As far as I can tell from looking at the code, allowing ir would not have any impact on the project, also the test code do not cover this. The use case for this would be to allocate prefixes for customers point-to-point links and loopback/anycast addresses.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:25:12 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@th3goose commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

I would think the /31 and /127 would be more the prefix, and the /32 /128 would be more the ip on the interfaces.

@th3goose commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): I would think the /31 and /127 would be more the prefix, and the /32 /128 would be more the ip on the interfaces.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

Yep. In NetBox, /32s and /128s are modeled only IP addresses, so that they can be assigned to interfaces.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): Yep. In NetBox, /32s and /128s are modeled only IP addresses, so that they can be assigned to interfaces.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@asenci commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

But that would not be accurate, would it?

The /32 address in this case is not part of a larger prefix, it is the prefix on its own.
Using /31's would not match the routing database, not to mention you can have a point-to-point link with IP addresses further apart then a /31.
Remote access concentrators will typically use the same IP address on all the point-to-point interfaces for example.

@asenci commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): But that would not be accurate, would it? The /32 address in this case is not part of a larger prefix, it is the prefix on its own. Using /31's would not match the routing database, not to mention you can have a point-to-point link with IP addresses further apart then a /31. Remote access concentrators will typically use the same IP address on all the point-to-point interfaces for example.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

@asceni The /32 is both a prefix and an IP address. Semantics aside, it is modeled as an IP address in NetBox. Modeling a /32 as a prefix would require NetBox to support assigning IP addresses and prefixes (but only /32s and /128s) to interfaces, which would be needlessly complex. Further, replicating a routing table is not NetBox's intended function; modeling the assignment of IP addresses to interfaces is.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): @asceni The /32 is both a prefix and an IP address. Semantics aside, it is modeled as an IP address in NetBox. Modeling a /32 as a prefix would require NetBox to support assigning IP addresses _and_ prefixes (but only /32s and /128s) to interfaces, which would be needlessly complex. Further, replicating a routing table is not NetBox's intended function; modeling the assignment of IP addresses to interfaces is.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@asenci commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

Hi @jeremystretch, just did a few test on my dev environment.
By simply removing the prefix size check on the "clean" method of the "Prefix" class, I was able to create a /32 prefix and then a /32 IP address inside that prefix.
Everything worked as expected, so I see no need to assign a prefix to the device interface.

@asenci commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): Hi @jeremystretch, just did a few test on my dev environment. By simply removing the prefix size check on the "clean" method of the "Prefix" class, I was able to create a /32 prefix and then a /32 IP address inside that prefix. Everything worked as expected, so I see no need to assign a prefix to the device interface.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@goallight commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2017):

I am running into this issue as well while trying to port over my old IPAM system. My old system allowed for /32 prefix to be assigned to individual customers so I need these to show as not available. I am new to netbox but like it a lot so far. Maybe I am missing it, but where is the setting to verify size check on prefix length?

@goallight commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2017): I am running into this issue as well while trying to port over my old IPAM system. My old system allowed for /32 prefix to be assigned to individual customers so I need these to show as not available. I am new to netbox but like it a lot so far. Maybe I am missing it, but where is the setting to verify size check on prefix length?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@asenci commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2017):

Hi @goallight,

If you really need it, you might want to take a look at this commit:
30aa83025d

Please note I haven't look into it since earlier this year, so I am not sure how it would affect the newer versions.

@asenci commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2017): Hi @goallight, If you really need it, you might want to take a look at this commit: https://github.com/asenci/netbox/commit/30aa83025d475be7e2603cff103bb31f18260ccf Please note I haven't look into it since earlier this year, so I am not sure how it would affect the newer versions.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@goallight commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2017):

Thanks! This worked exactly as I needed

@goallight commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2017): Thanks! This worked exactly as I needed
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
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#731
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?