Open TaLoN1x opened 6 months ago
Yeah I aggree with this issue, but the problem is how netbox organizes objects. If you don't map virtual appliances that represent hosts to devices, then you lose useful netbox relation:
Virtual appliances are mostly Firewalls, Virtual Storage Devices, Virtual Switches, etc. This would not affect this functionality, in some cases would even enable the use of abstraction layer for capacity planning.
But you only have virtual machines
object in netbox to represent virtual appliances. So would it make sense to create firewalls, virtual switches, etc. as virtual machines
?
yes, but currently vsans, vswitches in vmware are being created as devices.
Would you be able to help me with this issue, e.g. provide some logic of how to implement this, and which devices to map to which virtualization appliances?
yes, I will dive deeper in this in a few days.
Currently virtual appliances are being created as devices, in fact there is no physical devices and thing runs on a VM instead of physical device. This creates two problems:
ERROR (vc-test): failed to add vmware host virtual-vsan-host.local with error: unexpected status code: 400: {"serial":["Ensure this field has no more than 50 characters."]}
I'd suggest there are 2 things:
I will think of the second point for some time in detils