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

Add ForcePoint CVI protocol to the options of the FHRP Group #7485

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:23:58 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:58 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @hovrashko on GitHub (Jan 9, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.3.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Currently the FHRP Group does not support CVI protocol used by ForcePoint, and only available option would be to use Other

Available options in v3.3.7 (and 3.4.2) are seen bellow:
image

I propose to add another Protocol to the dropdown list that is CVI for ForcePoint type Firewall.

Use case

Improve the modelling of the FHRP when using ForcePoint firewalls

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @hovrashko on GitHub (Jan 9, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.3.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Currently the FHRP Group does not support CVI protocol used by ForcePoint, and only available option would be to use Other Available options in v3.3.7 (and 3.4.2) are seen bellow: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/61986752/211404602-06706076-726c-47e2-b1b1-90a56f0d328a.png) I propose to add another Protocol to the dropdown list that is CVI for ForcePoint type Firewall. ### Use case Improve the modelling of the FHRP when using ForcePoint firewalls ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 20:23:58 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:23:58 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023):

Could you link to some documentation of this protocol for reference?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023): Could you link to some documentation of this protocol for reference?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023):

Hi @jeremystretch,
Yes, it also took me a while (after ASA, FortiGate, PaloAlto etc) to get used to the CVI concept the ForcePoint using for VIP.

Convert a Single Firewall element to a Firewall Cluster element

In the NetBox I assign ip addresses separately to cluster interfaces of both FW's (Node 1 NDI and Node 2 NDI )and create FHRP group with the CVI ip.

image

Thank you very much!

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023): Hi @jeremystretch, Yes, it also took me a while (after ASA, FortiGate, PaloAlto etc) to get used to the CVI concept the ForcePoint using for VIP. [Convert a Single Firewall element to a Firewall Cluster element](https://help.stonesoft.com/onlinehelp/StoneGate/SMC/6.5.0/GUID-11AAB824-EF19-4993-8C65-87804AD64C6D.html) In the NetBox I assign ip addresses separately to cluster interfaces of both FW's (Node 1 NDI and Node 2 NDI )and create FHRP group with the CVI ip. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/61986752/225704173-c9945897-435e-45a4-9e95-f53e758c75ee.png) Thank you very much!
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023):

The documentation you linked suggests CVI stands for "Cluster Virtual IP," rather than itself being a wire protocol. This should be modeled as a VIP in NetBox.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023): The documentation you linked suggests CVI stands for "Cluster Virtual IP," rather than itself being a wire protocol. This should be modeled as a VIP in NetBox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023):

Hey @jeremystretch ,
Yes, they are VIP's but the protocol still a CVI not "other".
image

It wont change the structure, but it's a proper way to document the network. Otherwise the FHRP list only would have "other" in it.
Jeremy, please correct me if im mistaken, or it doesn't make sense.

Regards,
Thank you!

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2023): Hey @jeremystretch , Yes, they are VIP's but the protocol still a CVI not "other". ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/61986752/225707747-e84ed864-e95f-43aa-854b-77dd550ade5c.png) It wont change the structure, but it's a proper way to document the network. Otherwise the FHRP list only would have "other" in it. Jeremy, please correct me if im mistaken, or it doesn't make sense. Regards, Thank you!
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:23:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023):

Hi there,
So, seems like all the information provided. Can we add the ForcePoint CVI FHRP protocol to the next NetBox version?

Thank you!

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023): Hi there, So, seems like all the information provided. Can we add the ForcePoint CVI FHRP protocol to the next NetBox version? Thank you!
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 2, 2023):

Again, you've provided no indication that CVI is a wire protocol, so it would not make sense to add it to the list. If you can provide a reference to the specific wire protocol in use, we'll be happy to add it.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 2, 2023): Again, you've provided no indication that CVI is a wire protocol, so it would not make sense to add it to the list. If you can provide a reference to the specific wire protocol in use, we'll be happy to add it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (May 18, 2023):

Hi there,
Well, the CVI is none of the Standard, Checkpoint or Cisco either. And it does the exact same thing. So, the only option is "other". Im asking to add FrocePoint CVI to the list. very simple. The available options mean to make thing easier to understand not to confuse.
A lot of ForcePoint information and downloads are not available online without the customer login. People who created the first list of FHRP names should understand what FHRP is and how it works. And that is exactly what Forcepoint does with CVI. In the cluster there are could be many routers, but only one GW.
Here is some information how it works: https://help.forcepoint.com/ngfw/en-us/7.0.0/GUID-BA8C43E7-92C1-44A0-B621-AAE838544576.html

If im adding the CVI in the wrong place, please tell me where it needs to go if it not to FHRP group.

Thank you.

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (May 18, 2023): Hi there, Well, the CVI is none of the Standard, Checkpoint or Cisco either. And it does the exact same thing. So, the only option is "other". Im asking to add FrocePoint CVI to the list. very simple. The available options mean to make thing easier to understand not to confuse. A lot of ForcePoint information and downloads are not available online without the customer login. People who created the first list of FHRP names should understand what FHRP is and how it works. And that is exactly what Forcepoint does with CVI. In the cluster there are could be many routers, but only one GW. Here is some information how it works: [https://help.forcepoint.com/ngfw/en-us/7.0.0/GUID-BA8C43E7-92C1-44A0-B621-AAE838544576.html](url) If im adding the CVI in the wrong place, please tell me where it needs to go if it not to FHRP group. Thank you.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Aug 16, 2023):

Hi,
It has been a while and the question is explained over and over several times by several different approaches it is a FHRP. When can we add ForcePoint CVI's to FHRP?

Would appreciate the relevant approach from someone who understand what FHRP is and what it does.

Thank you.

@hovrashko commented on GitHub (Aug 16, 2023): Hi, It has been a while and the question is explained over and over several times by several different approaches it is a FHRP. When can we add ForcePoint CVI's to FHRP? Would appreciate the relevant approach from someone who understand what FHRP is and what it does. Thank you.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 15, 2023):

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 (Nov 15, 2023): 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 20:24:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2023):

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 (Dec 15, 2023): 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 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#7485
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?