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

Documenting (Cisco) ServiceInstance EVC/efp #1982

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:21:08 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:21:08 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @DaWaKo on GitHub (Aug 31, 2018).

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7.1
  • NetBox version: 2.3.1

Proposed Functionality

Greetings!
To decouple the customer VLAN tag's integer from the bridge-domain integer could the documentation of Service-Instance/EVC interfaces be added to NetBox sometime please?
Eg:
Allow us to document that we have the following configured on a single router:
Interface Gi0/0/2efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 100
Interface Gi0/0/2efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 101
Interface Gi0/1/8efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 888
Interface Gi0/1/8efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 889

Use Case

Since the introduction of carrier ethernet services on service-provider routers the VLAN id of tagged frames ingressing/egressing an interface is decoupled from the bridge-domain id on the router.
On cisco, this is done with their MEF based Service-Instance/EVC interface configuration.
We have situations where multiple customers whose connections terminate on a common router use the same VLAN tags. In order to discriminate between their frames requires numerically different bridge-domains on the router for each customer.

Database Changes

The closest I can come to answer is to say that the following will need to be supported:
An new interface definition/type/attribute (I think either would work) that allows us to define the following on a single router: (excuse the repetition)
Interface Gi0/0/2efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 100
Interface Gi0/0/2efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 101
Interface Gi0/1/8efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 888
Interface Gi0/1/8efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 889

External Dependencies

I'm sorry but I don't know how to answer this.

Thanks very much!

Originally created by @DaWaKo on GitHub (Aug 31, 2018). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for proposing specific new features or enhancements. If you have a general idea or question, please post to our mailing list instead of opening an issue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss NOTE: Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which significantly extend NetBox's feature scope. Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 2.7.1 * NetBox version: 2.3.1 <!-- --> ### Proposed Functionality Greetings! To decouple the customer VLAN tag's integer from the bridge-domain integer could the documentation of Service-Instance/EVC interfaces be added to NetBox sometime please? Eg: Allow us to document that we have the following configured on a single router: Interface Gi0/0/2efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 100 Interface Gi0/0/2efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 101 Interface Gi0/1/8efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 888 Interface Gi0/1/8efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 889 <!-- Convey an example use case for your proposed feature. Write from the perspective of a NetBox user who would benefit from the proposed functionality and describe how. ---> ### Use Case Since the introduction of carrier ethernet services on service-provider routers the VLAN id of tagged frames ingressing/egressing an interface is decoupled from the bridge-domain id on the router. On cisco, this is done with their MEF based Service-Instance/EVC interface configuration. We have situations where multiple customers whose connections terminate on a common router use the same VLAN tags. In order to discriminate between their frames requires numerically different bridge-domains on the router for each customer. <!-- Note any changes to the database schema necessary to support the new feature. For example, does the proposal require adding a new model or field? (Not all new features require database changes.) ---> ### Database Changes The closest I can come to answer is to say that the following will need to be supported: An new interface definition/type/attribute (I think either would work) that allows us to define the following on a single router: (excuse the repetition) Interface Gi0/0/2efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 100 Interface Gi0/0/2efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 101 Interface Gi0/1/8efp1234 with vlan 998 and associated with bridge-domain 888 Interface Gi0/1/8efp1235 with vlan 999 and associated with bridge-domain 889 <!-- List any new dependencies on external libraries or services that this new feature would introduce. For example, does the proposal require the installation of a new Python package? (Not all new features introduce new dependencies.) --> ### External Dependencies I'm sorry but I don't know how to answer this. Thanks very much!
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:21:08 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:21:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 5, 2018):

This has been proposed in the past and we have decided not to model bridge domains as they can be highly platform-specific.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 5, 2018): This has been proposed in the past and we have decided not to model bridge domains as they can be highly platform-specific.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:21:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DaWaKo commented on GitHub (Sep 5, 2018):

Thanks for considering this Jeremy I can see your point about the bridge-domains.
But could you allow for a new interface form factor called EVC (matching the MEF 3.0 definition for Ethernet Virtual Connection) that I can use with my efp interface Gi0/0/2efp1234?

Appreciate that you already have form factor "virtual", but I would like to discriminate.

All the best, and thanks for excellent tool.
Dana

@DaWaKo commented on GitHub (Sep 5, 2018): Thanks for considering this Jeremy I can see your point about the bridge-domains. But could you allow for a new interface form factor called EVC (matching the MEF 3.0 definition for Ethernet Virtual Connection) that I can use with my efp interface Gi0/0/2efp1234? Appreciate that you already have form factor "virtual", but I would like to discriminate. All the best, and thanks for excellent tool. Dana
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#1982
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?