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

Remove subnet mask from IP Addresses #9053

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:44:50 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024).

NetBox version

v3.7.0

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Currently the subnet mask length is an attribute of each IP address. I think it would make more sense for this to be an attribute of the prefix instead. I propose these changes:

  • Add a mandatory "parent prefix" field for IP addresses. This means you must create the Prefix before creating a new IP Address.
  • IP addresses are always entered in dotted notation without mask (e.g. 10.1.2.3)
  • Add a user preference to display IP addresses in CIDR notation based on its parent prefix. (I would never use this, I just mention it to avoid breaking anyone's workflow.) Otherwise they will be displayed in dotted notation.
  • A one-time upgrade script modifies all existing addresses and creates any missing prefixes.

Use case

The current model is redundant, and there is a risk that users enter the wrong mask length when creating a new IP Address, as described here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/8731#discussioncomment-2242315.
One way to avoid this risk is by instructing users to always use /32, which effectively makes that mask_length attribute useless, so in that case you would still need to refer to the IP Prefix to find it.
Moving the mask length to be an attribute of the Prefix would reduce the operational burden for data entry, and it would align better with the single source of truth concept. As a general rule, all IP addresses under the same parent prefix should share the same same mask length. I can't think of any exceptions to that.
This would also make it easier on the eyes when looking at big lists of addresses

Database changes

My best guess, not knowing Netbox very well:

  • add mandatory prefix_id field to ipam_ipaddress

External dependencies

none

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024). ### NetBox version v3.7.0 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Currently the subnet mask length is an attribute of each IP address. I think it would make more sense for this to be an attribute of the prefix instead. I propose these changes: - Add a mandatory "parent prefix" field for IP addresses. This means you must create the Prefix before creating a new IP Address. - IP addresses are always entered in dotted notation without mask (e.g. `10.1.2.3`) - Add a user preference to display IP addresses in CIDR notation based on its parent prefix. (I would never use this, I just mention it to avoid breaking anyone's workflow.) Otherwise they will be displayed in dotted notation. - A one-time upgrade script modifies all existing addresses and creates any missing prefixes. ### Use case The current model is redundant, and there is a risk that users enter the wrong mask length when creating a new IP Address, as described here: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/8731#discussioncomment-2242315. One way to avoid this risk is by instructing users to always use `/32`, which effectively makes that mask_length attribute useless, so in that case you would still need to refer to the IP Prefix to find it. Moving the mask length to be an attribute of the Prefix would reduce the operational burden for data entry, and it would align better with the _single source of truth_ concept. As a general rule, all IP addresses under the same parent prefix should share the same same mask length. I can't think of any exceptions to that. This would also make it easier on the eyes when looking at big lists of addresses ### Database changes My best guess, not knowing Netbox very well: - add mandatory `prefix_id` field to `ipam_ipaddress` ### External dependencies none
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:44:50 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:44:50 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024):

It's already possible to create an IP Address with no mask, and if you do this, Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display. Example from nbshell:

>>> ip = IPAddress(address='192.168.5.1')
>>> ip.save()
>>> IPAddress.objects.last()
<IPAddress: 192.168.5.1/32>

The Postgres data is stored like this:

netbox=> SELECT address FROM ipam_ipaddress ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 2;
     address     
-----------------
 192.168.5.1
 10.37.163.37/24

Apparently the mask requirement is only here in the GUI form:
c78a792ccc/netbox/ipam/formfields.py (L53-L56)

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024): It's already possible to create an IP Address with no mask, and if you do this, Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display. Example from `nbshell`: ```py >>> ip = IPAddress(address='192.168.5.1') >>> ip.save() >>> IPAddress.objects.last() <IPAddress: 192.168.5.1/32> ``` The Postgres data is stored like this: ```sql netbox=> SELECT address FROM ipam_ipaddress ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 2; address ----------------- 192.168.5.1 10.37.163.37/24 ``` Apparently the mask requirement is only here in the GUI form: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/c78a792cccfdbe6f373c0d474b1620e56e5f9cf8/netbox/ipam/formfields.py#L53-L56
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024):

It's already possible to create an IP Address with no mask, and if you do this, Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display. Example from nbshell:

>>> ip = IPAddress(address='192.168.5.1')
>>> ip.save()
>>> IPAddress.objects.last()
<IPAddress: 192.168.5.1/32>

You have to call full_clean() on the object before saving, otherwise no validation is executed.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024): > It's already possible to create an IP Address with no mask, and if you do this, Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display. Example from `nbshell`: > > ```python > >>> ip = IPAddress(address='192.168.5.1') > >>> ip.save() > >>> IPAddress.objects.last() > <IPAddress: 192.168.5.1/32> > ``` You have to call full_clean() on the object before saving, otherwise no validation is executed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024):

otherwise no validation is executed.

@kkthxbye-code I don't think that's accurate. See my other question #14718.

Anyway, in this example, full_clean does not make any difference, it still passes validation.

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024): > otherwise no validation is executed. @kkthxbye-code I don't think that's accurate. See my other question #14718. Anyway, in this example, full_clean does not make any difference, it still passes validation.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024):

Anyway, in this example, full_clean does not make any difference, it still passes validation.

Regardless, being able to do something in nbshell has no bearing on how netbox is designed and as such should not be used as arguments in feature requests. nbshell and custom scripts are "power user" features, and requires knowledge of django to use.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2024): > Anyway, in this example, full_clean does not make any difference, it still passes validation. Regardless, being able to do something in nbshell has no bearing on how netbox is designed and as such should not be used as arguments in feature requests. nbshell and custom scripts are "power user" features, and requires knowledge of django to use.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024):

this feels like it would be dependent on https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/7845

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024): this feels like it would be dependent on https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/7845
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:44:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024):

Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display.

Which is a subnet mask, albeit likely not the correct one for the IP address.

This discussion has run its course and we will not be making any changes.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024): > Netbox automatically turns it into a /32 for display. Which is a subnet mask, albeit likely not the correct one for the IP address. This discussion has run its course and we will not be making any changes.
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#9053
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?