Allow non-unique device and virtual machine names

[jeremystretch]

Environment

• Python version: 3.5.2
• NetBox version: 2.5.0

Proposed Functionality

Remove the uniqueness constraint on device and virtual machine names, so that multiple objects can be created with the same name. It is worth noting that NetBox technically already supports non-unique names, given that multiple devices can be unnamed (i.e. with a name of NULL).

Use Case

Some users have expressed a desire to support having multiple devices/VMs with the same name.

Database Changes

Remove unique=True from the name field on the Device and VirtualMachine models.

External Dependencies

None

[MelanieTanaka]

I definitely need this. We just evaluated netbox last week and opted to not use it since we have several hundred rack-mounted cable management units that we really do not need unique names for. We just want to give a reasonably descriptive name to each one such as the part number (or even go as generic as "cable manager"), but we can't do this with unique names being enforced.

Also if, as you mentioned, unique names are not really enforced to begin with by allowing empty names, it seems a bit odd.

[lampwins]

@MelanieTanaka to your point specifically, this is already possible today. When a device does not have a name in NetBox, it is displayed using its Device Type's name (which would include the model).

[MelanieTanaka]

@MelanieTanaka to your point specifically, this is already possible today. When a device does not have a name in NetBox, it is displayed using its Device Type's name (which would include the model).

We did notice leaving a name blank would pull a name from somewhere but in our case it was the device "role". Is there an option that would make it behave differently?

[bellwood]

If this resolves #1088 I'm all in favor.

[lampwins]

@MelanieTanaka that is true for the primary display in a rack, however, the hover tooltip includes the device type. So the typical use case is to have a device role of "Cable Manager" and if you wish to track the difference between different types of cable managers, do this with the device type.

I never liked the idea of people having 1000 devices with the actual name "Cable Manager" because inevitably people will build filters based off of the name, and they will have typos resulting in some amount of these devices named "Calbe Manager."

[dgomes87]

In our scenario there's 3 use cases where we would really need this.

first is building out exact copies of cabinets to offer our solutions. 1 customer = 1 cabinet, each built exactly the same. Devices have the same names/identification tags in each, same IPs (different VRF) and everything else. The only thing differentiating them from one another is the public IPs/VRF, and cabinet name. Right now we can't accurately represent this in netbox so we have had to prefix every device name with the cabinet name. We just started offering this service so it is not a huge issue yet but I see it growing into something severe enough that our techs would want to discard netbox and use something else.

second situation is we have multiple sites built out the same way, and on each site there are devices named the same due to our naming convention being based on a per-site basis. So each site can have a "server-01" for example.

third issue is the same one pointed out by @MelanieTanaka, all our "dumb" objects like cable management and other rack mountable accessories, have no need for unique naming, but for the sake of completeness of documentation we do not want to leave blank names as pointed out by @lampwins, even though we have tested and confirmed this method could technically work, we wouldn't be complying with our standards.

[jeremystretch]

Please remember to 👍 this FR if you're in favor (or 👎 if not).

[lampwins]

Just to solidify my neutral stance on this. IMO the only real use case here is for multiple sites that have networking devices with the same name (e.g. core1 at each site).

I understand people have their own requirements driving their use of NetBox, but I strongly urge against using this feature in order to name rack furniture (so-called "dumb devices" in this thread) all the same thing. Naming a device "Cable Manager" serves no purpose other than to duplicate data and increase the chance of incorrect data (typo in the name) at scale. In such cases, the purpose of this device (and hence its "name") can readily be obtained from its device role and or device type.

I wonder if it would make sense to instead change the constraint to be unique per site?

[jvanderaa]

I'll add another example of a good place where allowing the same name on VMs is in a multi-tenancy environment. Let's say customers have an AD environment and the server names in vCenter and the like show up as say AD01, AD02. Then that is used across multiple locations. This would be the perfect place to allow VMs to have the same name.

[amuckart]

I definitely need this. We just evaluated netbox last week and opted to not use it since we have several hundred rack-mounted cable management units that we really do not need unique names for. We just want to give a reasonably descriptive name to each one such as the part number (or even go as generic as "cable manager"), but we can't do this with unique names being enforced.

I think a better solution to this problem would be to print the device role in the main rack view if the name is empty. That way you can have lots of unnamed cable management that still shows up with a sensible label.

[jeremystretch]

Related: #1966

[amuckart]

If this change does get made I would really like to be able to toggle the behavior. In my environment we have a lot of VMs and multiple different sites/rack groups/racks etc. but name uniqueness is baked into our naming scheme and duplicates are an error.

[psuet]

name uniqueness is baked into our naming scheme and duplicates are an error.

I also name cable managers etc. with unique names following a schema, so this should definitely be toggleable setting if implemented.

[DanSheps]

I think a better way to tackle this, is perhaps have name uniqueness with either a site/rack/rackgroup (or in a VM case a VM cluster).

I don't think allowing globally ununique names would be a good thing IMO.