Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Set VRF for available IPs to same VRF as parent prefix #5703

Closed
gstorme opened this issue Jan 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #5896
Closed

Set VRF for available IPs to same VRF as parent prefix #5703

gstorme opened this issue Jan 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #5896
Assignees
Labels
status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application

Comments

@gstorme
Copy link

gstorme commented Jan 27, 2021

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.3
  • NetBox version: 2.10.1

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create prefix in VRF Global
  2. Change VRF of the prefix to a specific VRF
  3. Go to /ipam/prefixes/{prefix-id}/ip-addresses/

Expected Behavior

The available IP's are preset to the VRF of the parent prefix.
When clicking the "x available IPs" button, it will create an IP with the VRF of the parent prefix.

When using the button "+ add an ip address", the VRF is set correctly since it's redirecting to /ipam/ip-addresses/add/?address=172.16.20.6/24&vrf=4&tenant_group=&tenant=

Observed Behavior

The available IP's are still linked to VRF Global.
When clicking the "x available IPs" button, it will create an IP with VRF Global.

image

@DanSheps DanSheps added status: needs owner This issue is tentatively accepted pending a volunteer committed to its implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application labels Jan 27, 2021
@ljb2of3
Copy link

ljb2of3 commented Feb 12, 2021

@DanSheps I'd call this a bug, not a feature. As I get more non-networking folks using netbox to self-assign IPs this is going to cause significant confusion.

@DanSheps
Copy link
Member

I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't exactly a bug.

@nkeulen
Copy link
Contributor

nkeulen commented Feb 27, 2021

This problem annoyed me too, I've fixed it in my local version.
I can put in a pull request for this one if someone can assign the issue to me.

I actually do think it is a bug by the way.
Some jinja template lines from netbox/ipam/tables.py are not getting included because some stuff got renamed I think.

Anyhow if someone can assign this issue to me, I'll add a pull request for it.

@jeremystretch jeremystretch added status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation and removed status: needs owner This issue is tentatively accepted pending a volunteer committed to its implementation labels Feb 27, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 31, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants