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

Semantic of port speed / upstream speed of a Circuit Termination #1744

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:34:56 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:56 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @zorun on GitHub (May 25, 2018).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.5
  • NetBox version: 2.3.3

Description

When creating a Circuit Termination, the semantic of "upstream speed" vs. "port speed" does not seem to be consistent:

  • in the edition view, I understood that "port speed" is the speed of the physical port (10G in my case) while "upstream speed" is the actual speed of the circuit in the provider's network (1G in my case)
  • but in the circuit view, it renders as if the termination has a different speed depending on the direction (inbound / unbound)

Here are the screenshots of each view:

Circuit view

Edition view

What is the actual semantic of these two "speed" fields?

Originally created by @zorun on GitHub (May 25, 2018). ### Issue type [ ] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [X] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.5 * NetBox version: 2.3.3 ### Description When creating a Circuit Termination, the semantic of "upstream speed" vs. "port speed" does not seem to be consistent: - in the edition view, I understood that "port speed" is the speed of the physical port (10G in my case) while "upstream speed" is the actual speed of the circuit in the provider's network (1G in my case) - but in the circuit view, it renders as if the termination has a different speed depending on the direction (inbound / unbound) Here are the screenshots of each view: ![Circuit view](https://files.polyno.me/img/netbox-speed-edit.png) ![Edition view](https://files.polyno.me/img/netbox-speed.png) What is the actual semantic of these two "speed" fields?
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:34:56 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2018):

The assumption is that if an upstream speed has been defined, the user wants to show allocated upstream and downstream rates, rather than line rate.

{% if termination.upstream_speed %}
    <i class="fa fa-arrow-down" title="Downstream"></i> {{ termination.port_speed|humanize_speed }}
    <i class="fa fa-arrow-up" title="Upstream"></i> {{ termination.upstream_speed|humanize_speed }}
{% else %}
    {{ termination.port_speed|humanize_speed }}
{% endif %}
@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2018): The assumption is that if an upstream speed has been defined, the user wants to show allocated upstream and downstream rates, rather than line rate. ``` {% if termination.upstream_speed %} <i class="fa fa-arrow-down" title="Downstream"></i> {{ termination.port_speed|humanize_speed }} <i class="fa fa-arrow-up" title="Upstream"></i> {{ termination.upstream_speed|humanize_speed }} {% else %} {{ termination.port_speed|humanize_speed }} {% endif %} ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@amuckart commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2018):

I can see two options for this. Rename "Upstream" to "Provisioned speed" or something similar, or model both up-and down stream speeds.

I don't know if enough people are still stuck with asymmetrical circuits in this day and age to make the latter option worthwhile.

@amuckart commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2018): I can see two options for this. Rename "Upstream" to "Provisioned speed" or something similar, or model both up-and down stream speeds. I don't know if enough people are still stuck with asymmetrical circuits in this day and age to make the latter option worthwhile.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 22, 2018):

Going to keep this as is for now. We might still modify the fields in the future.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 22, 2018): Going to keep this as is for now. We might still modify the fields in the future.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:34:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mgob commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019):

I can see two options for this. Rename "Upstream" to "Provisioned speed" or something similar, or model both up-and down stream speeds.

I don't know if enough people are still stuck with asymmetrical circuits in this day and age to make the latter option worthwhile.

There's plenty of cases still where this holds true, we for instance have a lot of SD-WAN based locations which utilize broadband circuits as one of the available paths such as Coax/DSL/FTTH/GPON and some of them are asymm still so reworking this would be quite useful to us.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/netbox-discuss/UyfaBTH1WXE

@mgob commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019): > I can see two options for this. Rename "Upstream" to "Provisioned speed" or something similar, or model both up-and down stream speeds. > > I don't know if enough people are still stuck with asymmetrical circuits in this day and age to make the latter option worthwhile. There's plenty of cases still where this holds true, we for instance have a lot of SD-WAN based locations which utilize broadband circuits as one of the available paths such as Coax/DSL/FTTH/GPON and some of them are asymm still so reworking this would be quite useful to us. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/netbox-discuss/UyfaBTH1WXE
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#1744
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?