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

Block availability and creation of IPs in IP Ranges #7609

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:26:02 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:02 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @iamjla on GitHub (Feb 6, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.2

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

We would suggest "IP Ranges" gets the following 2 new booleans:

  • "Exclude from Available IPs"
    This still allows creation of IPs of this IP Range but prohibits them from being used in available ip logic (API&UI)

  • "Block creation of IPs in this Range"
    As the name suggests, any IP creation in this range should be blocked

Use case

General IP Ranges for DHCP
or
Exclude ranges for automatic short lived DHCP deployments to avoid collisions which later get proper IPs assigned
and
To avoid blocking e.g. 2000 (or IPv6-scale amounts of) IPs in the database manually

Something similar came up in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/7516 though it was about utilization and making them unavailable for other uses.

https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9763 captures a possible UI solution

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @iamjla on GitHub (Feb 6, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.2 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality We would suggest "IP Ranges" gets the following 2 new booleans: - "Exclude from Available IPs" This still allows creation of IPs of this IP Range but prohibits them from being used in available ip logic (API&UI) - "Block creation of IPs in this Range" As the name suggests, any IP creation in this range should be blocked ### Use case General IP Ranges for DHCP or Exclude ranges for automatic short lived DHCP deployments to avoid collisions which later get proper IPs assigned and To avoid blocking e.g. 2000 (or IPv6-scale amounts of) IPs in the database manually Something similar came up in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/7516 though it was about utilization and making them unavailable for other uses. https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9763 captures a possible UI solution ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: duplicate labels 2025-12-29 20:26:02 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:26:02 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@do9xe commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2023):

We're also looking into how we could leverage the ranges to define DHCP-Pools for our deployments. I also thought about using the "is a pool" flag, but it has another purpose. I'd love to see a possibility to model DHCP-Ranges in NetBox.
After reading through #7516 and #9763 I think a combination of all three could be a viable solution. Having the ranges blocking the utilization, showing up in the IP address list and having the possibility to block the creation of IPs would be a good combination. Especially making the "block creation" option optional for DHCP-Ranges so one could create static DHCP-bindings within a pool.

@do9xe commented on GitHub (Feb 7, 2023): We're also looking into how we could leverage the ranges to define DHCP-Pools for our deployments. I also thought about using the "is a pool" flag, but it has another purpose. I'd love to see a possibility to model DHCP-Ranges in NetBox. After reading through #7516 and #9763 I think a combination of all three could be a viable solution. Having the ranges blocking the utilization, showing up in the IP address list and having the possibility to block the creation of IPs would be a good combination. Especially making the "block creation" option optional for DHCP-Ranges so one could create static DHCP-bindings within a pool.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Feb 15, 2023):

Thinking this should be handled by what would be done in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9763.

Feel free to discuss your booleans in there, or, any additional requirements.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Feb 15, 2023): Thinking this should be handled by what would be done in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9763. Feel free to discuss your booleans in there, or, any additional requirements.
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: duplicate 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#7609
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?