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

Interface connections overview include description #1698

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:30 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:30 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @deku-m on GitHub (Apr 25, 2018).

Issue type

[X ] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.2
  • NetBox version: 2.3.3

Description

As we handle fiberpanels/patchpanels as devices, we know its not the normal way but a workaround,

We are making connections towards the switches (SER/MER principle). After that we want to make labeling for the cabling. One thing helps in this path and that is the overview from the interface connections.

Only one thing we are missing now when we make a export froms this is that we are missing the descriptions as we use this to know where the connections goes too (from the fiber panel towards a other device/location)
Location/Device >> Copper/Fiber panel >> Switch.

As it isnt possible to connect the same interface towards a other device. Or is it?

So the overiew should be looking like below or include it in the export if possible:

Device A Interface A Description Device B Interface B Descriptions
FO01 05-06 XXX LAN-VSS-2 GI2/7/16 XXX

This really helps in printing labels for cabling with the combination of the csv export.
Maybe it is also smart to also include the vlan tag then if possible?

Originally created by @deku-m on GitHub (Apr 25, 2018). <!-- Before opening a new issue, please search through the existing issues to see if your topic has already been addressed. Note that you may need to remove the "is:open" filter from the search bar to include closed issues. Check the appropriate type for your issue below by placing an x between the brackets. For assistance with installation issues, or for any other issues other than those listed below, please raise your topic for discussion on our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please note that issues which do not fall under any of the below categories will be closed. Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which extend NetBox's feature scope. Do not prepend any sort of tag to your issue's title. An administrator will review your issue and assign labels as appropriate. ---> ### Issue type [X ] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> <!-- Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. (Be sure to verify that you are running the latest stable release of NetBox before submitting a bug report.) If you are submitting a bug report and have made any changes to the code base, please first validate that your bug can be recreated while running an official release. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.2<!-- Example: 3.5.4 --> * NetBox version: 2.3.3<!-- Example: 2.1.3 --> <!-- BUG REPORTS must include: * A list of the steps needed for someone else to reproduce the bug * A description of the expected and observed behavior * Any relevant error messages (screenshots may also help) FEATURE REQUESTS must include: * A detailed description of the proposed functionality * A use case for the new feature * A rough description of any necessary changes to the database schema * Any relevant third-party libraries which would be needed --> ### Description As we handle fiberpanels/patchpanels as devices, we know its not the normal way but a workaround, We are making connections towards the switches (SER/MER principle). After that we want to make labeling for the cabling. One thing helps in this path and that is the overview from the interface connections. Only one thing we are missing now when we make a export froms this is that we are missing the descriptions as we use this to know where the connections goes too (from the fiber panel towards a other device/location) Location/Device >> Copper/Fiber panel >> Switch. As it isnt possible to connect the same interface towards a other device. Or is it? So the overiew should be looking like below or include it in the export if possible: Device A Interface A Description Device B Interface B Descriptions FO01 05-06 XXX LAN-VSS-2 GI2/7/16 XXX This really helps in printing labels for cabling with the combination of the csv export. Maybe it is also smart to also include the vlan tag then if possible?
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 16:34:30 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:30 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (May 2, 2018):

Since you're already doing a work-around:

A really hacky (really, really hacky) solution is to define your fiber panel device type with 2 x the ports it really has, with an in/out pair of ports in NetBox representing the input and output side of the patchpanel.

So, you'd get DeviceA:eth0 => PatchPanel:Port25IN and PatchPanel:Port25OUT => SwitchA:Gi0/1. Your code could then take this data from JSON output requesting connections for the "PatchPanel" device and match Port25[IN|OUT] as one PatchPanel:Port25 entry for your labels, for the full line being DeviceA:eth0 => PatchPanel:Port25 => SwitchA:Gi0/1

Having a PatchPanel form factor which would allow a pass-through connection would likely solve this in long term, but that's a WASG :)

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (May 2, 2018): Since you're already doing a work-around: A really hacky (really, *really* hacky) solution is to define your fiber panel device type with 2 x the ports it really has, with an in/out pair of ports in NetBox representing the input and output side of the patchpanel. So, you'd get `DeviceA:eth0` => `PatchPanel:Port25IN` and `PatchPanel:Port25OUT` => `SwitchA:Gi0/1`. Your code could then take this data from JSON output requesting connections for the "PatchPanel" device and match `Port25[IN|OUT]` as one `PatchPanel:Port25` entry for your labels, for the full line being *DeviceA:eth0 => PatchPanel:Port25 => SwitchA:Gi0/1* Having a _PatchPanel_ form factor which would allow a pass-through connection would likely solve this in long term, but that's a WASG :)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018):

I don't normally condone any changes relating to (currently) unsupported features, but it seems reasonable to include the interface descriptions in the connections list.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018): I don't normally condone any changes relating to (currently) unsupported features, but it seems reasonable to include the interface descriptions in the connections list.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@carrichristian commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2018):

I am also trying to do this same thing:
Device A Interface A Description Device B Interface B Descriptions

@carrichristian commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2018): I am also trying to do this same thing:\ Device A Interface A Description Device B Interface B Descriptions
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 status: accepted 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#1698
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?