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

Modelling redundant port-channel devices like Cisco 9K's? #1727

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:46 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @wrouesnel on GitHub (May 15, 2018).

Issue type

[x] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.5
  • NetBox version: v2.3.3

Description

The current virtual chassis implementation works for devices like HP5900 series switches where the redundant IRF configuration means two switches act as one logical device, including from a network perspective.

However it doesn't appear to be capable of handling Cisco 9000 series switches, which implement this quite differently - namely - you can have virtual port channel's spanning across two devices, which are linked via the vPC peer link, but managed independently (i.e. have separate network identities).

This means from a topology perspective the fact that the port-channel is being redundantly proxied around via the switches isn't going to be properly represented (and viewing the full configuration as a single unit can't be done).

I think the solution here would be to support "multi-master" virtual devices so this situation can be properly represented?

Originally created by @wrouesnel on GitHub (May 15, 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: 3.6.5 * NetBox version: v2.3.3 <!-- 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 The current virtual chassis implementation works for devices like HP5900 series switches where the redundant IRF configuration means two switches act as one logical device, including from a network perspective. However it doesn't appear to be capable of handling Cisco 9000 series switches, which implement this quite differently - namely - you can have virtual port channel's spanning across two devices, which are linked via the vPC peer link, but managed independently (i.e. have separate network identities). This means from a topology perspective the fact that the port-channel is being redundantly proxied around via the switches isn't going to be properly represented (and viewing the full configuration as a single unit can't be done). I think the solution here would be to support "multi-master" virtual devices so this situation can be properly represented?
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2018):

Virtual chassis is intended only for devices which share a common control plane. Multichassis LAG is different from this: each switch has its own control plane and its own incantation of the LAG interface. The only sane way I've come up with to model this is to simply create the LAG interface on both switches (without putting them in a virtual chassis). This mostly closely resembles real world operation. For instance, you can disable the LAG interface on one switch but not the other.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2018): Virtual chassis is intended only for devices which share a common control plane. Multichassis LAG is different from this: each switch has its own control plane and its own incantation of the LAG interface. The only sane way I've come up with to model this is to simply create the LAG interface on both switches (without putting them in a virtual chassis). This mostly closely resembles real world operation. For instance, you can disable the LAG interface on one switch but not the 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#1727
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?