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

Parent LAG interface assumed to be Virtual - option to allow physical #1723

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:44 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:44 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tardoe on GitHub (May 11, 2018).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7.12
  • NetBox version: 2.3.3

Description

At the moment, LAG parent interfaces are assumed to be virtual interfaces. Extreme Networks takes a different approach and assigns one of the members of the LAG as the "master". This member then becomes the "Parent" interface. The current work around is to duplicate a given interface as both a physical and a virtual interface to support documenting LAG groups.

Proposed functionality:
Allow a given physical interface to be the parent for other physical (or virtual in the case of VLAN sub-interfaces or tagged interfaces)

Originally created by @tardoe on GitHub (May 11, 2018). ### 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: 2.7.12<!-- 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 At the moment, LAG parent interfaces are assumed to be virtual interfaces. Extreme Networks takes a different approach and assigns one of the members of the LAG as the "master". This member then becomes the "Parent" interface. The current work around is to duplicate a given interface as both a physical and a virtual interface to support documenting LAG groups. Proposed functionality: Allow a given physical interface to be the parent for other physical (or virtual in the case of VLAN sub-interfaces or tagged interfaces)
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:44 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 11, 2018):

This seems like a pretty stark departure from the industry norm and would require fairly complex logic to implement reliably. It's not going to be worth the time and effort to get right if this is only a nuance of the Extreme platform.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 11, 2018): This seems like a pretty stark departure from the industry norm and would require fairly complex logic to implement reliably. It's not going to be worth the time and effort to get right if this is only a nuance of the Extreme platform.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 12, 2018):

This is a fair point.

In which case, from a modelling perspective, how do you suggest this best be achieved with the current method other than duplicating port numbers (if possible)?

Regards,

Tim Raphael

On 11 May 2018, at 11:45 pm, Jeremy Stretch notifications@github.com wrote:

This seems like a pretty stark departure from the industry norm and would require fairly complex logic to implement reliably. It's not going to be worth the time and effort to get right if this is only a nuance of the Extreme platform.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 12, 2018): This is a fair point. In which case, from a modelling perspective, how do you suggest this best be achieved with the current method other than duplicating port numbers (if possible)? Regards, Tim Raphael > On 11 May 2018, at 11:45 pm, Jeremy Stretch <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > This seems like a pretty stark departure from the industry norm and would require fairly complex logic to implement reliably. It's not going to be worth the time and effort to get right if this is only a nuance of the Extreme platform. > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. >
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joxz commented on GitHub (May 14, 2018):

I created a virtual interface in netbox and added a "g" for grouping, e.g. 1:49g; and a physical port "1:49". EXOS also does this notation when showing the output of sh vlan <name>.

This doesn't solve your problem with duplicating, but you could have a consistent notation that way.

@joxz commented on GitHub (May 14, 2018): I created a virtual interface in netbox and added a "g" for grouping, e.g. 1:49g; and a physical port "1:49". EXOS also does this notation when showing the output of `sh vlan <name>`. This doesn't solve your problem with duplicating, but you could have a consistent notation that way.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 14, 2018):

Thanks Jo,

That’s a great idea!

  • Tim

On 14 May 2018, at 8:35 pm, jo notifications@github.com wrote:

I created a virtual interface in netbox and added a "g" for grouping, e.g. 1:49g; and a physical port "1:49". EXOS also does this notation when showing the output of sh vlan .

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/2088#issuecomment-388772425, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFFaS6M_yO2KTtDifkMAB7jcrvEXkiN1ks5tyV3sgaJpZM4T7CJo.

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 14, 2018): Thanks Jo, That’s a great idea! - Tim > On 14 May 2018, at 8:35 pm, jo <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > I created a virtual interface in netbox and added a "g" for grouping, e.g. 1:49g; and a physical port "1:49". EXOS also does this notation when showing the output of sh vlan <name>. > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/2088#issuecomment-388772425>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFFaS6M_yO2KTtDifkMAB7jcrvEXkiN1ks5tyV3sgaJpZM4T7CJo>. >
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#1723
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?