netbox-topology-views icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
netbox-topology-views copied to clipboard

Implement l3 topology diagram

Open dainok opened this issue 3 years ago • 7 comments

I'm adding a second diagram to build L3 topologies (Idepends on https://github.com/mattieserver/netbox-topology-views/pull/139).

The idea is:

  • I can get per VRF L3 diagrams (additional filter compared to L2 diagrams)
  • For each "prefix" (network) the diagram attach devices with L3 interfaces attached to
  • Devices are named "devicename-vrfname" (a single device can route multiple VRF)
  • The VRF is the one associated to the "prefix" not the one associated to interfaces (they can differ)

It should be tested on additional scenarios, on mine it's working fine.

VRF leaking is not supported.

@mattieserver let me know if it can be interesting for you.

dainok avatar Aug 04 '22 13:08 dainok

Looks interesting

mattieserver avatar Aug 04 '22 15:08 mattieserver

Thank you. It's for me even if it's far to be perfect.

dainok avatar Aug 04 '22 15:08 dainok

Hi @mattieserver I realize there is another conflict. Do you think the PR could be helpful for you? Should I make another PR to fix the conflict?

dainok avatar Aug 17 '22 15:08 dainok

There are some changes since the update to netbox 3.3. I will try to resolve the issues and then look to merge it.

mattieserver avatar Sep 21 '22 07:09 mattieserver

Thank you, let me know if I can help.

dainok avatar Sep 21 '22 07:09 dainok

Would it make sense to include the whole hierarchy of the IP range?

So now i get:

image

But i have a 'super' scope: image

I think it might be a good feature to also link to the super scope.

mattieserver avatar Sep 28 '22 14:09 mattieserver

@mattieserver sorry for the delay. I made an assumption: a prefix is defined for each network. I didn't found any other viable option to get the configured networks and used IP address.

Based on that, I think the super scope is not useful, because it is a sort of summarization of multiple networks. What do you think?

dainok avatar Oct 03 '22 08:10 dainok

Since there hasn't been any communication for more than two months, I wonder if this PR is going anywhere. In the meantime there has been several commits to the master branch causing a few merge conflicts. What's the plan with this idea?

dreng avatar Jan 10 '23 18:01 dreng

Yes, i need to fix some stuff and now with the recent MR/PR's there are some new issues. I might recreate the branch to be up to date since i think i borked the rebase/git history.

mattieserver avatar Jan 10 '23 18:01 mattieserver