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

Warning popup when adding IP to interface that is duplicate #8954

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:43:18 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:18 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dionrowney on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.6.6

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

When adding an IP to an interface via the interface screen, when the confirmation popup says added, a warning popup should also be also shown if the IP added is a duplicate.

Use case

When adding IP addresses to interfaces via the interface screen, users cannot tell they have added a duplicate IP unless they click on and inspect the IP record afterwards. This would further reduce the case of human error when entering IP addresses.

We suggest this method as we experienced this on a isolated switch that was not part any VRF (was in global) which could have prevented the duplicate IP entry via the unique IP setting.

Database changes

none

External dependencies

none

Originally created by @dionrowney on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.6.6 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality When adding an IP to an interface via the interface screen, when the confirmation popup says added, a warning popup should also be also shown if the IP added is a duplicate. ### Use case When adding IP addresses to interfaces via the interface screen, users cannot tell they have added a duplicate IP unless they click on and inspect the IP record afterwards. This would further reduce the case of human error when entering IP addresses. We suggest this method as we experienced this on a isolated switch that was not part any VRF (was in global) which could have prevented the duplicate IP entry via the unique IP setting. ### Database changes none ### External dependencies none
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 20:43:18 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:43:18 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023):

We suggest this method as we experienced this on a isolated switch that was not part any VRF (was in global) which could have prevented the duplicate IP entry via the unique IP setting.

Note that you can reject such duplicates entirely by setting ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE=True - which can also be set in the web UI via Admin > Config Revisions.

TBH, this surprises a lot of people, and maybe it would make more sense to make it default to True these days. There were common cases which required duplicate addresses in the past which are no longer necessary if you use FHRP groups.

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023): > We suggest this method as we experienced this on a isolated switch that was not part any VRF (was in global) which could have prevented the duplicate IP entry via the unique IP setting. Note that you can reject such duplicates entirely by setting [ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE](https://docs.netbox.dev/en/stable/configuration/miscellaneous/#enforce_global_unique)=True - which can also be set in the web UI via Admin > Config Revisions. TBH, this surprises a lot of people, and maybe it would make more sense to make it default to True these days. There were common cases which required duplicate addresses in the past which are no longer necessary if you use FHRP groups.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dionrowney commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023):

I was aware of the ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True

I spoke to our network team and they were not excited about creating fake VRFs for these isolated switches as it didnt represent reality but this does seem to be the only way to allow the same IP range to be used in multiple places and still enforce duplicate addresses prevention.

@dionrowney commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023): I was aware of the ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True I spoke to our network team and they were not excited about creating fake VRFs for these isolated switches as it didnt represent reality but this does seem to be the only way to allow the same IP range to be used in multiple places and still enforce duplicate addresses prevention.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2023):

It does seem like the default should be --> ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2023): It does seem like the default should be --> ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

When adding an IP to an interface via the interface screen, when the confirmation popup says added, a warning popup should also be also shown if the IP added is a duplicate.

We generally avoid this sort of "warn but permit" workflow: It's inconsistent and doesn't really achieve anything. (We also don't have any existing patterns for effecting a pop-up, so that would be new UI work.)

I spoke to our network team and they were not excited about creating fake VRFs for these isolated switches as it didnt represent reality

They may not exist as explicit VRFs in your network, but it certainly sounds like you have multiple L3 forwarding domains. These are modeled using VRFs in NetBox. (Note that the designation of a route distinguisher is optional; these can just be named tables.)

It does seem like the default should be --> ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True

I've opened #14536 to track this proposal. Please give it a 👍 response to show your support.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2023): > When adding an IP to an interface via the interface screen, when the confirmation popup says added, a warning popup should also be also shown if the IP added is a duplicate. We generally avoid this sort of "warn but permit" workflow: It's inconsistent and doesn't really achieve anything. (We also don't have any existing patterns for effecting a pop-up, so that would be new UI work.) > I spoke to our network team and they were not excited about creating fake VRFs for these isolated switches as it didnt represent reality They may not exist as explicit VRFs in your network, but it certainly sounds like you have multiple L3 forwarding domains. These are modeled using VRFs in NetBox. (Note that the designation of a route distinguisher is optional; these can just be named tables.) > It does seem like the default should be --> ENFORCE_GLOBAL_UNIQUE = True I've opened #14536 to track this proposal. Please give it a :+1: response to show your support.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 15, 2024):

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 (Mar 15, 2024): 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 20:43:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (May 15, 2024):

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 (May 15, 2024): 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 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#8954
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?