starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

For a prefix that is marked "utilised" child prefix creation should be blocked #9803

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:22:55 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:55 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @imdhruva on GitHub (Jun 6, 2024).

Deployment Type

NetBox Cloud

NetBox Version

v3.7.3

Python Version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a prefix "10.120.36.0/22" with a specific VRF/Tenant/Site/Region/Role and mark it as "Utilised" (and not marked as pool); status is set to "Active"
  2. Create another prefix "10.120.37.0/24" with the same VRF/Tenant/Site/Region/Role

Expected Behavior

child prefix "10.120.37.0/24" should be blocked from creation.

Observed Behavior

child prefix is created

Originally created by @imdhruva on GitHub (Jun 6, 2024). ### Deployment Type NetBox Cloud ### NetBox Version v3.7.3 ### Python Version 3.10 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a prefix "10.120.36.0/22" with a specific VRF/Tenant/Site/Region/Role and mark it as "Utilised" (and not marked as pool); status is set to "Active" 2. Create another prefix "10.120.37.0/24" with the same VRF/Tenant/Site/Region/Role ### Expected Behavior child prefix "10.120.37.0/24" should be blocked from creation. ### Observed Behavior child prefix is created
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:22:55 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2024):

Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the feature request template. Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2024): Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the [feature request template](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/new?template=feature_request.md). Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@imdhruva commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024):

@DanSheps Thanks for getting back on this. I was under the assumption that the purpose of IPAM (amongst other things) is to let us allocate child prefixes and stop us from allocating an overlapping prefix and so if 10.120.36.0/22 is already allocated and marked as utilised then any of the overlaps should be invalid.

Can you please explain why is this an intended behaviour instead?

@imdhruva commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024): @DanSheps Thanks for getting back on this. I was under the assumption that the purpose of IPAM (amongst other things) is to let us allocate child prefixes and stop us from allocating an overlapping prefix and so if `10.120.36.0/22` is already allocated and marked as utilised then any of the overlaps should be invalid. Can you please explain why is this an intended behaviour instead?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024):

Address planning happens at many different levels and in many different contexts. An IPAM system which does not permit the user to mark a parent prefix as utilized with respect to higher-scope planning while still allowing more granular allocations within it would be practically useless for most people. Of course, if this doesn't meet your needs, you are free to fork the code and modify it as you see fit.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024): Address planning happens at many different levels and in many different contexts. An IPAM system which does not permit the user to mark a parent prefix as utilized with respect to higher-scope planning while still allowing more granular allocations within it would be practically useless for most people. Of course, if this doesn't meet your needs, you are free to fork the code and modify it as you see fit.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024):

Of course, if this doesn't meet your needs, you are free to fork the code and modify it as you see fit.

This may also be possible with a custom validator, not even requiring a fork of the code.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2024): > Of course, if this doesn't meet your needs, you are free to fork the code and modify it as you see fit. This may also be possible with a custom validator, not even requiring a fork of the code.
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#9803
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?