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

Global search for IPs #7423

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:23:19 +01:00 by adam · 13 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:19 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @alexey-kirillov on GitHub (Dec 26, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.4.1

Python version

3.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. create 10.0.0.0/24 prefix
  2. create 10.0.0.1 IP in this prefix (and Don't create .2)
  3. search for 10.0.0.1 - found!
  4. search for 10.0.0.2 - NOTHING

Expected Behavior

Previously one could search for existing AND non-existing IPs and locate a correct prefix. Now it's only working for existing IPs. Frequently you don't have to create every IP object in netbox as this prefix has a dhcp server. At the same time it's convenient to locate prefix using a client IP.

Observed Behavior

You cannot find a relevant prefix for an IP if the IP wasn't explicitly created in NetBox

Originally created by @alexey-kirillov on GitHub (Dec 26, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.4.1 ### Python version 3.8 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. create 10.0.0.0/24 prefix 2. create 10.0.0.1 IP in this prefix (and Don't create .2) 3. search for 10.0.0.1 - found! 4. search for 10.0.0.2 - NOTHING ### Expected Behavior Previously one could search for existing AND non-existing IPs and locate a correct prefix. Now it's only working for existing IPs. Frequently you don't have to create every IP object in netbox as this prefix has a dhcp server. At the same time it's convenient to locate prefix using a client IP. ### Observed Behavior You cannot find a relevant prefix for an IP if the IP wasn't explicitly created in NetBox
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:23:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2022):

You cannot find a relevant prefix for an IP if the IP wasn't explicitly created in NetBox

Yes, this is expected behavior when using the global search function: It's won't return results for records that don't exist. I honestly can't see why anyone would expect it to do that.

Previously one could search for existing AND non-existing IPs and locate a correct prefix.

This is still feasible via the same exact mechanism as before, by utilizing the search or quick search filters under the prefixes list. This mechanism applies logic which looks for any prefixes containing the specified IP address, whereas the global search intentionally does not.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2022): > You cannot find a relevant prefix for an IP if the IP wasn't explicitly created in NetBox Yes, this is expected behavior when using the global search function: It's won't return results for records that don't exist. I honestly can't see why anyone would expect it to do that. > Previously one could search for existing AND non-existing IPs and locate a correct prefix. This is still feasible via the same exact mechanism as before, by utilizing the search or quick search filters under the prefixes list. This mechanism applies logic which looks for any prefixes _containing_ the specified IP address, whereas the global search intentionally does not.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alexey-kirillov commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2022):

  1. This was working before, that's why it was expected in 3.4+
  2. Yes prefix search works, but inability to do it from the main page makes the system less convenient. Also in our case with less than 1000 prefixes it takes some time to load /ipam/prefixes/ to start searching.
@alexey-kirillov commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2022): 1. This was working before, that's why it was expected in 3.4+ 2. Yes prefix search works, but inability to do it from the main page makes the system less convenient. Also in our case with less than 1000 prefixes it takes some time to load /ipam/prefixes/ to start searching.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sleepinggenius2 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2022):

I was just about to open an issue on this myself, as it is a regression from versions prior to 3.4. You used to be able to put any IP into the global search and it would return the IP Address, if it existed, and/or the prefix that it belonged to. We used this all the time if we were given an IP address and needed to figure out what it belonged to. The convenience was that the global search would return the record for that specific IP if it existed or the prefix that it was a part of if it did not exist. Now, in order to achieve the same functionality, we have to search for the IP either in the global search or the IP Address search, then if it is not found, navigate to the Prefix search and search for the IP again. This is a task that our abuse team has to perform many times per day, and as a large number of IPs are assigned through DHCP or subnets are allocated to customers for their own assignment, and thus the IPs are not recorded in NetBox, these extra steps are a nuisance. I'm now having to explore alternative methods of achieving the previous functionality to address the regression in their workflow. I would add my vote to see net_contains be included as a "Partial match" for the Prefix object type in the global search once again.

@sleepinggenius2 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2022): I was just about to open an issue on this myself, as it is a regression from versions prior to 3.4. You used to be able to put any IP into the global search and it would return the IP Address, if it existed, and/or the prefix that it belonged to. We used this all the time if we were given an IP address and needed to figure out what it belonged to. The convenience was that the global search would return the record for that specific IP if it existed or the prefix that it was a part of if it did not exist. Now, in order to achieve the same functionality, we have to search for the IP either in the global search or the IP Address search, then if it is not found, navigate to the Prefix search and search for the IP again. This is a task that our abuse team has to perform many times per day, and as a large number of IPs are assigned through DHCP or subnets are allocated to customers for their own assignment, and thus the IPs are not recorded in NetBox, these extra steps are a nuisance. I'm now having to explore alternative methods of achieving the previous functionality to address the regression in their workflow. I would add my vote to see net_contains be included as a "Partial match" for the Prefix object type in the global search once again.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

@jeremystretch I know this issue is closed but my organization also used this functionality extensively. 5100 prefixes takes a LONG time for the prefixes page to load to search it. Bumping for awareness and to ask for reconsideration.

@DCAuto commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): @jeremystretch I know this issue is closed but my organization also used this functionality extensively. 5100 prefixes takes a LONG time for the prefixes page to load to search it. Bumping for awareness and to ask for reconsideration.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

@jeremystretch Are you willing to revisit this? For similar reasons as @sleepinggenius2 mentioned our security group is struggling with this.

@baldgeek commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): @jeremystretch Are you willing to revisit this? For similar reasons as @sleepinggenius2 mentioned our security group is struggling with this.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

You're certainly welcome to dig into how the new global search engine works and propose a specific new implementation to deliver the functionality you want to see. This issue was opened as a bug, which it's not, so it was closed. However, please bear in mind that any proposed solution will need to be accompanied by a reasonably detailed accounting of the technical strategy as well as any trade-offs with regard to performance, etc.

As an aside, this is precisely why we ask repeatedly for people to help test new releases during the beta period. To the best of my recollection, no one identified this as a desired feature, so it was not considered during work on the new search engine.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): You're certainly welcome to dig into how the new global search engine works and propose a specific new implementation to deliver the functionality you want to see. This issue was opened as a bug, which it's not, so it was closed. However, please bear in mind that any proposed solution will need to be accompanied by a reasonably detailed accounting of the technical strategy as well as any trade-offs with regard to performance, etc. As an aside, this is precisely why we ask repeatedly for people to help test new releases during the beta period. To the best of my recollection, no one identified this as a desired feature, so it was not considered during work on the new search engine.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

@jeremystretch Not to be a dick, but this was existing functionality. Are you asking that we list all existing functionality as a "desired feature" for future releases? To the best of my recollection this was not listed as deprecated functionality in the release notes.

@DCAuto commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): @jeremystretch Not to be a dick, but this was existing functionality. Are you asking that we list all existing functionality as a "desired feature" for future releases? To the best of my recollection this was not listed as deprecated functionality in the release notes.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

The v3.4 release notes very clearly indicate that the global search engine is being replaced with a completely new implementation. I'm not sure what level of detail you were expecting, but to me that very strongly implies that all previously existing search functionality would be impacted. Again, this is why we plead with the community to help evaluate our work before the final release. It's unfortunate that you did not opt to participate in the beta evaluation, but we can't be expected to act on feedback we're not given.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): The v3.4 release notes very clearly indicate that the global search engine is being replaced with a completely new implementation. I'm not sure what level of detail you were expecting, but to me that very strongly implies that all previously existing search functionality would be impacted. Again, this is why we plead with the community to help evaluate our work _before_ the final release. It's unfortunate that you did not opt to participate in the beta evaluation, but we can't be expected to act on feedback we're not given.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@c0herent commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023):

+1 to add this functionality back. The workaround does work, but it is very helpful for non-technical users who have no networking knowledge to be able to just put an IP address in a search box and see where it is located.

One of the big use cases we have for NetBox is using it to replace spreadsheets of IP ranges which is where we had to look previously to find IPs.

@c0herent commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023): +1 to add this functionality back. The workaround does work, but it is very helpful for non-technical users who have no networking knowledge to be able to just put an IP address in a search box and see where it is located. One of the big use cases we have for NetBox is using it to replace spreadsheets of IP ranges which is where we had to look previously to find IPs.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023):

@c0herent As I've told others, you're certainly welcome to devise an implementation that works with the improved search engine and submit a feature request for it. So far unfortunately, no one has.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023): @c0herent As I've told others, you're certainly welcome to devise an implementation that works with the improved search engine and submit a feature request for it. So far unfortunately, no one has.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@c0herent commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023):

@jeremystretch Unfortunately I'm not a developer so creating something like that is beyond my ability at this time. I was just hoping to promote bringing this feature back. Not sure if there is a better place to vote on feature requests.

I love NetBox and it is by far the best open-source IPAM/DCIM tool I've found. I'm just trying to make a suggestion for something that would be very helpful in our environment.

@c0herent commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2023): @jeremystretch Unfortunately I'm not a developer so creating something like that is beyond my ability at this time. I was just hoping to promote bringing this feature back. Not sure if there is a better place to vote on feature requests. I love NetBox and it is by far the best open-source IPAM/DCIM tool I've found. I'm just trying to make a suggestion for something that would be very helpful in our environment.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kzhang1310 commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2023):

@jeremystretch I will vote to get this feature back, new search is rubbish in terms of visual presentation

@kzhang1310 commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2023): @jeremystretch I will vote to get this feature back, new search is rubbish in terms of visual presentation
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2023):

Locking this as there is no further action to be taken. As I've stated above, anyone who would like to propose a specific, feasible improvement to the current search engine in the form of a detailed feature request is welcome to do so.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2023): Locking this as there is no further action to be taken. As I've stated above, anyone who would like to propose a **specific, feasible improvement** to the current search engine in the form of a detailed feature request is welcome to do so.
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#7423
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?