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

Allow nat ip addresses to be filled with bulk import #9863

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:23:42 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:23:42 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dhoffend on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.0.5

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Allow nat ip address fields in the bulk import dialog.

Use case

We're trying to migrate a bigger number of ip addresses with static nat translations into the netbox. The current bulk csv import header fields don't allow those fields to be imported.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @dhoffend on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.0.5 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Allow nat ip address fields in the bulk import dialog. ### Use case We're trying to migrate a bigger number of ip addresses with static nat translations into the netbox. The current bulk csv import header fields don't allow those fields to be imported. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: needs ownerpending closurecomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:23:42 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:23:42 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:23:43 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peteeckel commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

This is not as trivial as it seems at first, I'm afraid.

I see two options to implement this:

  • Using the pk of the referenced nat_inside address object (unambiguous, but not very user-friendly)
  • Using the address of the referenced nat_inside address object (might be ambiguous or even wrong in some cases, e.g. if there is an object with the specified address, but not in the correct VRF).

Any ideas on how to best solve this? I'm afraid the only safe implementation is the one using pk.

@peteeckel commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): This is not as trivial as it seems at first, I'm afraid. I see two options to implement this: * Using the `pk` of the referenced `nat_inside` address object (unambiguous, but not very user-friendly) * Using the `address` of the referenced `nat_inside` address object (might be ambiguous or even wrong in some cases, e.g. if there is an object with the specified `address`, but not in the correct VRF). Any ideas on how to best solve this? I'm afraid the only safe implementation is the one using `pk`.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:23:43 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 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 (Sep 17, 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 21:23:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 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 (Oct 18, 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 complexity: low pending closure status: needs owner 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#9863
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?