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

Aggregate utilization should not consider a prefix of type container as 100% utilized #7635

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:26:18 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:18 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Feb 11, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.4

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Whenever calculating prefix/aggregate utilization, do not consider a prefix with status of container as 100% utilized, instead take into account its child prefixes and addresses.

Use case

The reasoning behind it

As per the documentation, the container prefix exists only for organizational purposes and therefore has a special way of calculating utilization.

By that definition, the general understanding is that this is not a real prefix, it shouldn't exist on the actual network, it is purely for organizing child prefixes which in turn are real. And it makes sense for it to be this way, but this is inconsistent in some areas.

Our use case as an ISP

We have been allocated some prefixes by our local RIR; they live in the aggregate menu. On the prefix menu we create several /24 prefixes, as those are a common way to divide the network due to how BGP works. Not all of these are actually reachable on the network, most of them have been created on Netbox as a container.

The idea behind it being that Netbox's prefix utilization feature would be able to help us properly manage allocations to our network.

The problem

Prefixes of type container are considered, by their parent aggregate, as 100% allocated.


I assume that containers are supposed to be the root prefix, therefore nesting these, although possible, shouldn't be done. However, by default, prefixes are children of aggregates, and they too have a utilization meter.

In the afore-mentioned use case this causes our aggregates utilization to always be set to 100%, even though that's not true, and in the same way we consider prefix utilization to be a very important measure in our network, aggregate utilization too is important, but currently unusable for us.

Database changes

None.

External dependencies

None.

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Feb 11, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.4 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Whenever calculating prefix/aggregate utilization, do not consider a prefix with status of `container` as 100% utilized, instead take into account its child prefixes and addresses. ### Use case ## The reasoning behind it As per the [documentation](https://demo.netbox.dev/static/docs/models/ipam/prefix/#status), the `container` prefix exists only for **organizational** purposes and therefore has a [special](https://demo.netbox.dev/static/docs/features/ipam/#utilization-stats) way of calculating utilization. By that definition, the general understanding is that this is not a _real_ prefix, it shouldn't exist on the actual network, it is purely for organizing child prefixes which in turn **are** real. And it makes sense for it to be this way, but this is inconsistent in some areas. ## Our use case as an ISP We have been allocated some prefixes by our local RIR; they live in the aggregate menu. On the prefix menu we create several `/24` prefixes, as those are a common way to divide the network due to how BGP works. Not all of these are actually reachable on the network, most of them have been created on Netbox as a `container`. The idea behind it being that Netbox's prefix utilization feature would be able to help us properly manage allocations to our network. ## The problem **Prefixes of type `container` are considered, by their parent aggregate, as 100% allocated.** <br> I assume that containers are supposed to be the root prefix, therefore nesting these, although possible, shouldn't be done. However, by default, prefixes are children of aggregates, and they too have a utilization meter. In the afore-mentioned use case this causes our aggregates utilization to always be set to 100%, even though that's not true, and in the same way we consider prefix utilization to be a very important measure in our network, aggregate utilization too is important, but currently unusable for us. ### Database changes None. ### External dependencies None.
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 20:26:18 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:26:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mobrowse commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2023):

Hello, we too are experiencing this same problem.

@mobrowse commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2023): Hello, we too are experiencing this same problem.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:26:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 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 (Aug 2, 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 20:26:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 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 (Sep 1, 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: under review 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#7635
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?