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

IPv6 address assignment to interface is enforcing Network Address limitations. #8268

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:34:30 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:34:30 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @nzurku on GitHub (Jun 29, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.1

Python version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

Create and IPv6 address that lands on the "network address". Assign this to an interface. Example, 2600::/64

Expected Behavior

There are no "network addresses" in IPv6 that are impossible to use on network devices. Or possibly, whatever validation this is triggering was meant to be IPv4 only.

I would expect this address and ones like it to be assignable to an interface as it was before in ~v3.5.1 and earlier.

Observed Behavior

A validation error appears "2600::/64 is a network ID, which may not be assigned to an interface."

Originally created by @nzurku on GitHub (Jun 29, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.1 ### Python version 3.10 ### Steps to Reproduce Create and IPv6 address that lands on the "network address". Assign this to an interface. Example, 2600::/64 ### Expected Behavior There are no "network addresses" in IPv6 that are impossible to use on network devices. Or possibly, whatever validation this is triggering was meant to be IPv4 only. I would expect this address and ones like it to be assignable to an interface as it was before in ~v3.5.1 and earlier. ### Observed Behavior A validation error appears "2600::/64 is a network ID, which may not be assigned to an interface."
adam added the type: bugstatus: duplicate labels 2025-12-29 20:34:30 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:34:30 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:34:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@johannwagner commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023):

This was fixed in v3.5.4, ran into the same issue.

@johannwagner commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023): This was fixed in v3.5.4, ran into the same issue.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:34:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I believe this is a duplicate of #12687 and, as mentioned, was fixed in v3.5.4.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2023): I believe this is a duplicate of #12687 and, as mentioned, was fixed in v3.5.4.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:34:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nzurku commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2023):

I hate reopening things, but I think there is some confusion or another issue here. I am already running 3.5.4.

This bug is also reproducible on the public demo of Netbox.

Try to add 2600::/64 to this interface: https://demo.netbox.dev/ipam/ip-addresses/add/?device=95&interface=973&return_url=/dcim/interfaces/973/

@nzurku commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2023): I hate reopening things, but I think there is some confusion or another issue here. I am already running 3.5.4. This bug is also reproducible on the public demo of Netbox. Try to add 2600::/64 to this interface: https://demo.netbox.dev/ipam/ip-addresses/add/?device=95&interface=973&return_url=/dcim/interfaces/973/
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:34:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2023):

I hate reopening things, but I think there is some confusion or another issue here. I am already running 3.5.4.

This bug is also reproducible on the public demo of Netbox.

Try to add 2600::/64 to this interface: https://demo.netbox.dev/ipam/ip-addresses/add/?device=95&interface=973&return_url=/dcim/interfaces/973/

The first IPv6 address in a network is assignable, but it is the router anycast address, one of several required anycast addresses. (Anycast addresses are unicast addresses that are assigned to multiple hosts.) This is defined by RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture

Perhaps the error message needs to be clarified to better explain this instead of the message we currently get.
Or, we could do as suggested here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/12687#issuecomment-1579059777 but, either way, that would require a FR in that direction.

edit: wrong link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2023): > I hate reopening things, but I think there is some confusion or another issue here. I am already running 3.5.4. > > This bug is also reproducible on the public demo of Netbox. > > Try to add 2600::/64 to this interface: https://demo.netbox.dev/ipam/ip-addresses/add/?device=95&interface=973&return_url=/dcim/interfaces/973/ The first IPv6 address in a network is assignable, but it is the router anycast address, one of several required anycast addresses. (Anycast addresses are unicast addresses that are assigned to multiple hosts.) This is defined by [RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291) Perhaps the error message needs to be clarified to better explain this instead of the message we currently get. Or, we could do as suggested here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/12687#issuecomment-1579059777 but, either way, that would require a FR in that direction. _edit: wrong link_
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: bug
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#8268
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?