starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add additional copper port types, expand copper (coaxial) cable types, organize cable types #11338

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 21:43:51 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:51 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @pmsharp2 on GitHub (Jul 2, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.3.2

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Netbox only currently supports two coaxial port types, F Connector and N connector. While these are by far the most common there are additional types.
Propose the following changes:
Add: FME, SMA, SMB, SMC, TNC

In cable types coaxial cable is limited to "coaxial".
Propose the following changes:
Add: rg-6, rg-59, rg-62, rg-8, rg-11, rg-213, LMR, twinaxial, triaxial.

Use case

In an environment that uses different types of coaxial cable being able to break down with more detail the types of cable and their connectors is valuable

Database changes

None, these fields are solely drop down menus.

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @pmsharp2 on GitHub (Jul 2, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.3.2 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Netbox only currently supports two coaxial port types, F Connector and N connector. While these are by far the most common there are additional types. Propose the following changes: Add: FME, SMA, SMB, SMC, TNC In cable types coaxial cable is limited to "coaxial". Propose the following changes: Add: rg-6, rg-59, rg-62, rg-8, rg-11, rg-213, LMR, twinaxial, triaxial. ### Use case In an environment that uses different types of coaxial cable being able to break down with more detail the types of cable and their connectors is valuable ### Database changes None, these fields are solely drop down menus. ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurestatus: needs ownernetboxcomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:43:51 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2025):

Additional organization of the cable types drop down.

Please split proposal into a separate FR, so it doesn't get conflated with the introduction of new cable/port types.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2025): > Additional organization of the cable types drop down. Please split proposal into a separate FR, so it doesn't get conflated with the introduction of new cable/port types.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025):

Additional organization of the cable types drop down.

Please split proposal into a separate FR, so it doesn't get conflated with the introduction of new cable/port types.

I have separated the request: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/19865 and removed that from the original request.

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025): > > Additional organization of the cable types drop down. > > Please split proposal into a separate FR, so it doesn't get conflated with the introduction of new cable/port types. I have separated the request: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/19865 and removed that from the original request.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025):

I'm also happy volunteer to add these cables. (selfishly, I have an ongoing project that would benefit from having them)

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025): I'm also happy volunteer to add these cables. (selfishly, I have an ongoing project that would benefit from having them)
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2025):

This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2025): This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bluikko commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 2025):

Some discussion about SMA etc connector types was in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/16334 and unfortunately the proposal didn't make it.

@bluikko commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 2025): Some discussion about SMA etc connector types was in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/16334 and unfortunately the proposal didn't make it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2025):

I'm not considering these interfaces just simple front/back port options to support layer-one type connectivity. Many devices that support out of band management have SMA connections for additional cell antenna ie: Opengear OM2216-L, a Cisco CG522-E, or a Juniper LTE Mini-PIM module. TNC are a very common connector in anything having to do with satellite telecommunications.

Adding the additional wire types seems about as harmless of a change as possible. Netbox only supports one coaxial wire type while there are about 10

If dropdown bloat is the concern, I understand, and I'd suggest pairing down both lists to
SMA, SMB, TNC
and
rg-6, rg-11, LMR

@pmsharp2 commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2025): I'm not considering these interfaces just simple front/back port options to support layer-one type connectivity. Many devices that support out of band management have SMA connections for additional cell antenna ie: Opengear OM2216-L, a Cisco CG522-E, or a Juniper LTE Mini-PIM module. TNC are a very common connector in anything having to do with satellite telecommunications. Adding the additional wire types seems about as harmless of a change as possible. Netbox only supports one coaxial wire type while there are about 10 If dropdown bloat is the concern, I understand, and I'd suggest pairing down both lists to SMA, SMB, TNC and rg-6, rg-11, LMR
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2025):

I'm also happy volunteer to add these cables. (selfishly, I have an ongoing project that would benefit from having them)

Apologies @pmsharp2 , looks like this one got a little lost in the shuffle. As Jeremy said in the related FR, we might end up tweaking this or better grouping the choices. But, I'm going to go ahead and accept this and assign to you. Thanks!

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2025): > I'm also happy volunteer to add these cables. (selfishly, I have an ongoing project that would benefit from having them) Apologies @pmsharp2 , looks like this one got a little lost in the shuffle. As Jeremy said in the related FR, we might end up tweaking this or better grouping the choices. But, I'm going to go ahead and accept this and assign to you. Thanks!
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025):

@pmsharp2 are you still interested in working on this?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2025): @pmsharp2 are you still interested in working on this?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label complexity: low netbox status: needs owner type: feature
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#11338
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?