starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add Extreme Networks SummitStack as port types #1790

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:19:09 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:19:09 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tradiuz on GitHub (Jun 14, 2018).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.2
  • NetBox version: 2.3.5

Description

Adding support for Extreme stacking ports is fairly easy, just requires updating the constants.py to include the SummitStack, SummitStack128, and SummitStack512 port types under stacking.

Originally created by @tradiuz on GitHub (Jun 14, 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 * NetBox version: 2.3.5 <!-- 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 Adding support for Extreme stacking ports is fairly easy, just requires updating the constants.py to include the SummitStack, SummitStack128, and SummitStack512 port types under stacking.
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 17:19:09 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:19:09 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:19:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018):

I think it was unwise to have Cisco and Juniper stacking interfaces in the Netbox core, as this opens the door to every possible vendor's type of proprietary stacking port being requested.

A user-customisable table of interface types (similar to Device Type) would be the ideal solution. Then if you have (say) GPON interfaces, you can document those too.

In the absence of that, I'd suggest adding a generic "Other" under Stacking Port. That doesn't completely help people whose vendors have more than one port type, but there is already a free-form "Description" field that can say whether it's a type Foo or Bar.

@candlerb commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018): I think it was unwise to have Cisco and Juniper stacking interfaces in the Netbox core, as this opens the door to every possible vendor's type of proprietary stacking port being requested. A user-customisable table of interface types (similar to Device Type) would be the ideal solution. Then if you have (say) GPON interfaces, you can document those too. In the absence of that, I'd suggest adding a generic "Other" under Stacking Port. That doesn't completely help people whose vendors have more than one port type, but there is already a free-form "Description" field that can say whether it's a type Foo or Bar.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:19:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018):

My rule is that if it's a legitimately unique physical interface type in common usage, we'll add it. Sometimes "stacking" ports are really just standard Ethernet interfaces which have been designated for a specific function. Extreme appears to use a combination of standard and proprietary interfaces, so we can add the proprietary ones (taken from this data sheet):

  • SummitStack
  • SummitStack-128
  • SummitStack-256
  • SummitStack-512
@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018): My rule is that if it's a legitimately unique physical interface type in common usage, we'll add it. Sometimes "stacking" ports are really just standard Ethernet interfaces which have been designated for a specific function. Extreme appears to use a combination of standard and proprietary interfaces, so we can add the proprietary ones (taken from [this data sheet](http://www.usedcomp.de/pdf/Extreme-Networks-SummitStack-Virtual-Chassis-Stacking-Technology-Technical-Brief.pdf)): * SummitStack * SummitStack-128 * SummitStack-256 * SummitStack-512
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:19:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tradiuz commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018):

I agree with @candlerb that having a table would be the ideal solution (this is how RackTables does it). That would give room for having server interconnects (SAS HBA -> Disk Shelf).
However, in the interim, I'd like to add support for the platform I spend all day on. I'll update my PR with SummitStack-256.

@tradiuz commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2018): I agree with @candlerb that having a table would be the ideal solution (this is how RackTables does it). That would give room for having server interconnects (SAS HBA -> Disk Shelf). However, in the interim, I'd like to add support for the platform I spend all day on. I'll update my PR with SummitStack-256.
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#1790
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?