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

Unable to assign a Network/Broadcast IP to an Interface when Prefix is Pool #8427

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:36:34 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:34 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jshifletmilliman on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.7

Python version

3.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a device
  2. Add a Network type interface to the device
  3. Create a IPAM Pool (example 192.168.0.0/24) and check the box for "Is a Pool".
  4. Add an IP address that would normally be considered the Network or Broadcast IP address (for instance, if the Prefix is 192.168.0.0/24, add an IP address of 192.168.0.0/24)
  5. Attempt to assign the newly created 192.168.0.0/24 IP Address to a device interface and Save the IP.

Expected Behavior

The IP address should be saved without issue and the IP address should now be assigned to the device's network interface

Observed Behavior

When trying to save the IP, you will receive a red error message at the bottom right along the lines of "192.168.0.0/24 is a network ID, which may not be assigned to an interface."

Originally created by @jshifletmilliman on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.7 ### Python version 3.8 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a device 2. Add a Network type interface to the device 3. Create a IPAM Pool (example 192.168.0.0/24) and check the box for "Is a Pool". 4. Add an IP address that would normally be considered the Network or Broadcast IP address (for instance, if the Prefix is 192.168.0.0/24, add an IP address of 192.168.0.0/24) 5. Attempt to assign the newly created 192.168.0.0/24 IP Address to a device interface and Save the IP. ### Expected Behavior The IP address should be saved without issue and the IP address should now be assigned to the device's network interface ### Observed Behavior When trying to save the IP, you will receive a red error message at the bottom right along the lines of "192.168.0.0/24 is a network ID, which may not be assigned to an interface."
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:36:35 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jshifletmilliman commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023):

This appears to be a regression of #12687

@jshifletmilliman commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023): This appears to be a regression of #12687
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023):

note this was closed out as as-intended per https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/12962#issuecomment-1613002512

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023): note this was closed out as as-intended per https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/12962#issuecomment-1613002512
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jshifletmilliman commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023):

This is still bad behavior considering this functionality was previously allowed in older versions.

Imagine this scenario:

  • Enterprise organization
  • Departments are treated as Tenants
  • Org has a parent /24 prefix for OOB device management
  • Org subdivides the /24 into /27's and assigns a /27 to each Tenant/Department
  • Each /27 is marked as "Is a Pool" to allow for use of all 32 IP addresses, since the /27 is purely a logical subdivision of the /24 for documentation and assignment purposes to prevent accidental overlap, not for routing purposes
  • VRF for the subnet is in the /24, meaning all IPs in the /27 ranges use a netmask of /24 on their interfaces and point to the same gateway IP

So, example:

  • Parent Subnet: 192.168.0.0/24
  • Parent Subnet Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1/24
  • Sales Department Child Prefix: 192.168.0.32/27
  • Sales Department Console Server IP: 192.168.0.32/24
  • Sales Department Console Server Device Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1/24

Before, we were able to assign every IP in the /27 to an interface. Now, if we even so much as try and edit the IP address to change description or DNS value, we can't update it because of this error.

@jshifletmilliman commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023): This is still bad behavior considering this functionality was previously allowed in older versions. Imagine this scenario: - Enterprise organization - Departments are treated as Tenants - Org has a parent /24 prefix for OOB device management - Org subdivides the /24 into /27's and assigns a /27 to each Tenant/Department - Each /27 is marked as "Is a Pool" to allow for use of all 32 IP addresses, since the /27 is purely a logical subdivision of the /24 for documentation and assignment purposes to prevent accidental overlap, not for routing purposes - VRF for the subnet is in the /24, meaning all IPs in the /27 ranges use a netmask of /24 on their interfaces and point to the same gateway IP So, example: - Parent Subnet: 192.168.0.0/24 - Parent Subnet Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1/24 - Sales Department Child Prefix: 192.168.0.32/27 - Sales Department Console Server IP: 192.168.0.32/24 - Sales Department Console Server Device Default Gateway: 192.168.0.1/24 Before, we were able to assign every IP in the /27 to an interface. Now, if we even so much as try and edit the IP address to change description or DNS value, we can't update it because of this error.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023):

since the /27 is purely a logical subdivision of the /24 the actual ip objects should still be /24's in this case, the /27 is just a logical subdivision (and probably should be marked as a container)

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023): `since the /27 is purely a logical subdivision of the /24` the actual ip objects should still be /24's in this case, the /27 is just a logical subdivision (and probably should be marked as a container)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:36:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2023):

This is expected behavior and has already been discussed in previous issues.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2023): This is expected behavior and has already been discussed in previous issues.
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
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#8427
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?