phpIPAM or teemIP: standalone open source IPAM or IPAM + CMDB platform?

The real question: how far does your IP repository need to go?

Every network team shares the same starting point: replacing an unmanageable spreadsheet with a reliable IP inventory. On that ground, phpIPAM and teemIP both deliver. The difference appears next, when it comes to deciding whether an IP address stays a row in a repository or becomes an object linked to a device, an interface, a site, an organisation and an owner.

That question rarely comes up at the start of the project. It arrives twelve or twenty-four months later, when security asks for an inventory, operations wants to know who uses what, or an audit requires change tracking. Which is precisely why it deserves to be settled when the tool is chosen, and not on the day the need becomes urgent.

In 2 minutes: which option to look at?

When phpIPAM is a good choice

phpIPAM is a well-known open source IPAM to manage IPv4/IPv6 addresses, sections, subnets, free-space display, subnet scans, group-based permissions, imports, VLANs, VRFs and a REST API.

For a team that wants to replace a spreadsheet, centralize its addressing plans and get a dedicated IPAM interface, phpIPAM offers a fast, readable and cost-effective answer. Its scope is clear: it focuses on IP administration.

That is its strength: fewer objects to model, therefore less configuration before first go-live. The trade-off shows up the day IPAM becomes a matter of accountability, dependencies between assets, audit or process. Meeting that need then means connecting phpIPAM to another repository, or moving away from it.

When to look at teemIP seriously

teemIP covers the same IPAM foundation as phpIPAM: blocks, subnets, ranges, IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, VLANs, VRFs, imports and an API. On top of it, a CMDB links that information to devices, organisations, sites and request processes. An IP address stops being a row in a table: it becomes an element tied to its context, its usage and its ownership.

This approach helps when several teams — network, systems, security, support, operations — must share the same reliable, governed repository.

The data model is a less visible dividing line. Where phpIPAM lets you add custom fields, teemIP lets you extend the model itself — new classes, new relationships, lifecycles specific to the organization. In practice, a ticket reference or a criticality level becomes a first-class attribute rather than a line in a “notes” field.

Compare scopes, not “the best tool”

The risk of a poor comparison is to look for an abstract winner. The right choice depends on your IPAM maturity, your existing CMDB and the level of governance you expect.

Questions to ask before choosing

• Does your need stop at IP inventory, or does it include the CMDB and processes?
• Do you need to link addresses to devices, sites, services and owners?
• Do you need to frame address allocation and release requests?
• How many teams must share the same IPAM repository?
• How important are history, audit and data quality to you?
• Do you have the in-house skills to install and maintain the solution, or do you expect vendor support?
• How much do governance and digital sovereignty weigh in your trajectory?

Conclusion: a matter of trajectory

phpIPAM is a good tool for keeping an addressing plan, and it has done that job for a long time. teemIP covers the same ground and adds the CMDB, request workflows and vendor support. So the useful question is not which one manages IP addresses best, but whether you want to keep the option of going further without changing tools.

The most useful starting point remains an honest scoping exercise: what you must document now, what you must govern, and what you want to keep open for later.

Frequently asked questions about phpIPAM and teemIP

Public sources used

• phpIPAM — official feature list
• phpIPAM — official REST API documentation
• teemIP — official presentation
• teemIP — standalone solution and downloads
• teemIP — official documentation

Going further