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

Can't connect wireless interfaces #1707

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @wxnarwhal on GitHub (Apr 27, 2018).

I love NetBox. The topology maps are working well for me and I really appreciate the hard work on this project. One thing I noticed is that I can't connect wireless interfaces, and I would love it if my office laptops could also show up in topology. I am using a Dell SonicWALL with 5 ports (X1-X4) and I have also added one wireless interface to NetBox (W0). If I try to connect from the wireless interface of a laptop I can't see W0. If I try to connect from W0 on the SonicWALL, the connection page defaults to X3. The dropdown contains X0-X4 but no W0.

It also occurs to me that if this is not already a feature of NetBox, another factor to consider is that the wireless access point would have to accept a one-to-many connections. Unlike the network ports, it would not be super helpful if I could only connect one laptop to the wireless interface.

Right now I'm calling this a bug report but it might be a feature request.

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: Python 3.5.2

  • NetBox version: v2.3.2

  • A list of the steps needed for someone else to reproduce the bug

    • Click the connect button next to a wireless interface
    • Wireless interface is not an interface option in the connection dialog

  • A description of the expected and observed behavior

    • Click the connect button next to a wireless interface
    • Wireless interface of WAP can connect to wireless interface of other device
Originally created by @wxnarwhal on GitHub (Apr 27, 2018). I love NetBox. The topology maps are working well for me and I really appreciate the hard work on this project. One thing I noticed is that I can't connect wireless interfaces, and I would love it if my office laptops could also show up in topology. I am using a Dell SonicWALL with 5 ports (X1-X4) and I have also added one wireless interface to NetBox (W0). If I try to connect from the wireless interface of a laptop I can't see W0. If I try to connect from W0 on the SonicWALL, the connection page defaults to X3. The dropdown contains X0-X4 but no W0. It also occurs to me that if this is not already a feature of NetBox, another factor to consider is that the wireless access point would have to accept a one-to-many connections. Unlike the network ports, it would not be super helpful if I could only connect one laptop to the wireless interface. Right now I'm calling this a bug report but it might be a feature request. ### Issue type [ ] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [X ] 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: Python 3.5.2 * NetBox version: v2.3.2 * A list of the steps needed for someone else to reproduce the bug - Click the connect button next to a wireless interface - Wireless interface is not an interface option in the connection dialog * A description of the expected and observed behavior - Click the connect button next to a wireless interface - Wireless interface of WAP can connect to wireless interface of other device
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Curious. I've just added "wi0", and for 2 form factors I've tried ( 802.11a and 802.11b/g), the connect icon was available in the WebUI.

Out of curiosity, on the laptop and on the SonicWALL, what are the the form factors of the respective interfaces?

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (May 2, 2018): Curious. I've just added "wi0", and for 2 form factors I've tried ( `802.11a` and `802.11b/g`), the connect icon was available in the WebUI. Out of curiosity, on the laptop and on the SonicWALL, what are the the form factors of the respective interfaces?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wxnarwhal commented on GitHub (May 3, 2018):

Thanks for your assistance. You've asked a good questions and I'm sorry I left it out of the ticket. I am using "IEEE802.11ac". Based on your troubleshooting I switched it to "IEEE802.11a" and "IEEE802.11b/g" and the problem persisted.

I then deleted W0 and added it back as "IEEE802.11ac" and have the same problem. I then switched it to 1000BASE-T (1GE) and I can connect it now. I then decided to try a bunch of options to list a few more here. Here's the complete list including the one's I've already listed.

1000BASE-T (1GE) - can connect successfully
10GBASE-T (10GE) - can connect successfully
SFP+ (10GE) - can connect successfully
IEEE802.11a - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list
IEEE802.11b/g - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list
IEEE802.11n - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list
IEEE802.11ac - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list

@wxnarwhal commented on GitHub (May 3, 2018): Thanks for your assistance. You've asked a good questions and I'm sorry I left it out of the ticket. I am using "IEEE802.11ac". Based on your troubleshooting I switched it to "IEEE802.11a" and "IEEE802.11b/g" and the problem persisted. I then deleted W0 and added it back as "IEEE802.11ac" and have the same problem. I then switched it to 1000BASE-T (1GE) and I can connect it now. I then decided to try a bunch of options to list a few more here. Here's the complete list including the one's I've already listed. 1000BASE-T (1GE) - can connect successfully 10GBASE-T (10GE) - can connect successfully SFP+ (10GE) - can connect successfully IEEE802.11a - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list IEEE802.11b/g - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list IEEE802.11n - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list IEEE802.11ac - interface disappears from the Connect Interfaces list
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (May 3, 2018):

Hrmm... What an odd thing. (To be clear: I'm just a NetBox user, not a dev or affiliated with them).

It almost feels like the data defining which interface "form factor"(s) are connectable isn't quite correct. Not sure where to look for that without spelunking through code for a bit. My Python-fu is still weak (still learning things), but I'll give it a stab in the next couple of days, perhaps I'll find something.

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (May 3, 2018): Hrmm... What an odd thing. (To be clear: I'm just a NetBox user, not a dev or affiliated with them). It almost feels like the data defining which interface "form factor"(s) are connectable isn't quite correct. Not sure where to look for that without spelunking through code for a bit. My Python-fu is still weak (still learning things), but I'll give it a stab in the next couple of days, perhaps I'll find something.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

No worries, I appreciate your assistance. I noticed that v2.3.3 was released a couple of weeks ago but I'm still on v2.3.2. It might not be worth troubleshooting until I upgrade.

@wxnarwhal commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018): No worries, I appreciate your assistance. I noticed that v2.3.3 was released a couple of weeks ago but I'm still on v2.3.2. It might not be worth troubleshooting until I upgrade.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Interface connections are necessarily limited to one-to-one relationships. Modeling wireless "connections" was never a goal given their typically one-to-many and dynamic nature.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018): Interface connections are necessarily limited to one-to-one relationships. Modeling wireless "connections" was never a goal given their typically one-to-many and dynamic nature.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@flycam commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2018):

I do have a very valid use case for modeling 1:1 connections with wireless: Wireless point to point links. As i have a few of those in the network, I am unable to document the connection accurately. I would really like to have those links connected in netbox while still having it shown as a wireless interface. So for 1:1 it would be very helpful to have the option of connecting those interfaces.

@flycam commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2018): I do have a very valid use case for modeling 1:1 connections with wireless: Wireless point to point links. As i have a few of those in the network, I am unable to document the connection accurately. I would really like to have those links connected in netbox while still having it shown as a wireless interface. So for 1:1 it would be very helpful to have the option of connecting those interfaces.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mweinelt commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2018):

We do wireless backhaul as well and therefore have the requirement to connect PTP links, but wireless interfaces currently cannot be connected among each other.

@mweinelt commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2018): We do wireless backhaul as well and therefore have the requirement to connect PTP links, but wireless interfaces currently cannot be connected among each other.
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
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#1707
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?