Replies: 2 comments
-
|
i gues this is in place
Constraint “dcim_device_unique_name_site_tenant” is violated. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
I will do some more testing thenOn Jan 12, 2026, at 16:44, Patrick Marc Preuss ***@***.***> wrote:
i gues this is in place
image.png (view on web)
Constraint “dcim_device_unique_name_site_tenant” is violated.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In our datacenter we have quite a few tenants with equipment racks who are not very imaginative. This they all refer to their firewall pairs as FW-1 and FW-2. This is a problem as NetBox requires device names to be unique. I have been thinking that this could be solved if device name uniqueness included a reference to the assigned Tenant. Sort of like VRFs but for devices?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions