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

VRF-independent prefix children #8059

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:31:50 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:31:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @marcartz on GitHub (May 15, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.1

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

New prefix view: Please provide a flag to configure a prefix display view in a way that child prefixes are included purely based on their address, ignoring their VRF membership.

Use case

When using VRFs to enforce security zones, as common in many Cisco designs, children prefixes of a given supernet may belong to different VRFs. A central routing instance interconnects all VRFs in a single shared routing table (Fusion Router).
While Prefixes are technically unique to a given VRF in this scenario some coordination (uniqueness) of networks across VRFs is still required.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @marcartz on GitHub (May 15, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.1 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality New prefix view: Please provide a flag to configure a prefix display view in a way that child prefixes are included purely based on their address, ignoring their VRF membership. ### Use case When using VRFs to enforce security zones, as common in many Cisco designs, children prefixes of a given supernet may belong to different VRFs. A central routing instance interconnects all VRFs in a single shared routing table ([Fusion Router](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/cloud-systems-management/dna-center/213525-sda-steps-to-configure-fusion-router.html)). While Prefixes are technically unique to a given VRF in this scenario some coordination (uniqueness) of networks across VRFs is still required. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:31:50 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:31:50 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:31:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 15, 2023):

When using VRFs to enforce security zones

This is not the purpose of VRFs. Each VRF represents a discrete routing table. I'd suggest using tags, custom fields, or a plugin to effect the association of prefixes to security zones, as doing so is wholly independent from VRF assignment.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 15, 2023): > When using VRFs to enforce security zones This is not the purpose of VRFs. Each VRF represents a discrete routing table. I'd suggest using tags, custom fields, or a plugin to effect the association of prefixes to security zones, as doing so is wholly independent from VRF assignment.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:31:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcartz commented on GitHub (May 15, 2023):

I'm trying to propose a feature that would make Netbox even more helpful to us any many others as I'm confident (as I've tried to explain this design is very common with various large network vendors).
This feature would only affect the display of prefixes and would not require any changes to the data model.
What criteria would this feature request have to fulfil to make you consider it?

@marcartz commented on GitHub (May 15, 2023): I'm trying to propose a feature that would make Netbox even more helpful to us any many others as I'm confident (as I've tried to explain this design is very common with various large network vendors). This feature would only affect the display of prefixes and would not require any changes to the data model. What criteria would this feature request have to fulfil to make you consider it?
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 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#8059
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?