starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Extend VLAN group scoping to include device purpose #8988

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:43:52 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:52 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @moffitj on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023).

NetBox version

3.6.6

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

The VLAN group scoping should be extended to include purpose in addition to physical location.

The current model of VLAN scoping assumes that a VLAN is only present at a single geographic location, and that devices at any site all share the same responsibilities.

Use case

At Site A, I have OOB devices, Metro ethernet devices with S, C, and T tags, Internet VLANs, and internal VLANs. All of these network have VLANs that at least potentially overlap.

It seems like the only way to scope these devices correctly is to create a bunch of sites:
Site A - OOB
Site A - Metro S
Site A - Metro C
...etc.

I'd like to be able to scope a VLAN group to a purpose rather than a site. I don't know if the tag system could be extended but if I could scope a VLAN group to all devices with a particular tag, that would be nice. Otherwise a new field analogous to Device Role, like Device Environment/Purpose/Use.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @moffitj on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023). ### NetBox version 3.6.6 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality The VLAN group scoping should be extended to include purpose in addition to physical location. The current model of VLAN scoping assumes that a VLAN is only present at a single geographic location, and that devices at any site all share the same responsibilities. ### Use case At Site A, I have OOB devices, Metro ethernet devices with S, C, and T tags, Internet VLANs, and internal VLANs. All of these network have VLANs that at least potentially overlap. It seems like the only way to scope these devices correctly is to create a bunch of sites: Site A - OOB Site A - Metro S Site A - Metro C ...etc. I'd like to be able to scope a VLAN group to a purpose rather than a site. I don't know if the tag system could be extended but if I could scope a VLAN group to all devices with a particular tag, that would be nice. Otherwise a new field analogous to Device Role, like Device Environment/Purpose/Use. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 20:43:52 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:43:52 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023):

Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our contributing guide, a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023): Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md), a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:43:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2023):

This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2023): This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.
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: revisions needed 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#8988
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?