Add Virtual Machine Support and Toggleable Connections

[kalix127]

NetBox version

v4.4.7

Topology Views version

v.4.4.0

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Add virtual machine support to topology views:

• Display VMs as distinct nodes with host device connections
• Independent toggle for VM connection visibility
• VM coordinate persistence for custom layouts
• Support for VM interface connections

Use case

Visualize complete infrastructure including virtualized environments. I have already implemented this feature in my fork which you can test here: feat/virtual-machine-support
Great for organizations using Proxmox/PVE or other virtualization platforms who need to see both physical and virtual infrastructure relationships in a single topology view.

External dependencies

No response

Related to #51 and #499

[dreng]

How is your FR different from #51 and #499?

Btw.: NetBox does not support VM interface connections. That's why we don't either.

[kalix127]

I’m not trying to model real VM interface connections. I just use the existing VM -> host relationship to show VMs as nodes and draw a simple link to their host. It’s a higher-level visual aid, but still very useful for people who want to see that.

[JokingChicken]

As stated before: #499 (comment)

and believe me, it will make a lot of people happy having only icons inside boxes. I am one of them :)

And your earlier argument is less relevant now that it has already been implemented:

There is simply no benefit but a LOT of work if you take every aspect into account.

And this should be adaptable later on when netbox (hopefully) implements VM interface connections.

+1

[giuszeppe]

I would love to have it!!

[dreng]

I’m not trying to model real VM interface connections. I just use the existing VM -> host relationship to show VMs as nodes and draw a simple link to their host. It’s a higher-level visual aid, but still very useful for people who want to see that.

I think I understand what you mean. So it's not about wiring virtual interfaces, but about assigning VMs to their VM hosts. In general, that's not a bad idea. However, there are still some arguments against implementation, in my opinion.

1. VMs are not devices. This presents us with all the problems we also have with power panels, etc., because we are working in the device model. For example, we cannot filter. It's either all or nothing. This not only leads to a poor user experience, but also raises questions, such as why XY is displayed even though it is not in the filtered location (See Circuits not filtered out by tenant filter #427).
   For such crutches, you then find workarounds that cause other problems and even worse workarounds. Does anyone want to maintain such code? I certainly don't.
   Now you might ask why Power Panels etc. were implemented in the first place. Simple answer: I don't know, and I wouldn't have done it. Personally, I no longer touch issues that are not related to the device context. I completely understand why people want these features, but if NetBox/Django don't allow for a clean implementation, it's not much fun to code around them.

2. No one will maintain the code. It's always easy to add a feature, but you also have to make sure that the code survives longer than until the next problem arises. As I said, I don't want to maintain such code, and I'm afraid no one else will either (like Multiple terminations originating from circuit not visible #551 which is over a year old).

And this should be adaptable later on when netbox (hopefully) implements VM interface connections.

Unfortunately, no. See No. 1