starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Please add 200G interfaces. #2100

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:22:17 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:17 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @cmacnevin on GitHub (Nov 7, 2018).

We're running

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.4
  • NetBox version: 2.5.7

Proposed Functionality

200G interfaces are out in the wild now, and 400G and 800G are close behind. DWDM (Coherent)
and straight Ethernet are now available. eg: https://www.finisar.com/optical-transceivers/ftlc3322x3nl

I don't know what database change are necessary, as I'm primarily just a user trying to use this, but it seems an lot like you'll have to add a single line somewhere :)

No new packages, I don't believe.

External Dependencies

You might have to look at the link I supplied to check I'm not lying, I suppose :)

Please let me know if there's anything else you need to know, it seems pretty straight forward..

Originally created by @cmacnevin on GitHub (Nov 7, 2018). We're running ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.4 * NetBox version: 2.5.7 ### Proposed Functionality 200G interfaces are out in the wild now, and 400G and 800G are close behind. DWDM (Coherent) and straight Ethernet are now available. eg: https://www.finisar.com/optical-transceivers/ftlc3322x3nl I don't know what database change are necessary, as I'm primarily just a user trying to use this, but it seems an lot like you'll have to add a single line somewhere :) ### No new packages, I don't believe. ### External Dependencies You might have to look at the link I supplied to check I'm not lying, I suppose :) Please let me know if there's anything else you need to know, it seems pretty straight forward..
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 17:22:17 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:22:17 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@berahtlv commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018):

As I understood, transmission network is outside of the Netbox scope, where those interfaces are already available as pluggable and fixed interfaces. If data equipment will start using those, then they should be available and can be labeled as "OTN" in form factor list:

  • 100G (DP-QPSK)
  • 150G (DP-8QAM)
  • 200G (DP-16QAM)
@berahtlv commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018): As I understood, transmission network is outside of the Netbox scope, where those interfaces are already available as pluggable and fixed interfaces. If data equipment will start using those, then they should be available and can be labeled as "OTN" in form factor list: - 100G (DP-QPSK) - 150G (DP-8QAM) - 200G (DP-16QAM)
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cmacnevin commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018):

These are actually being used on Arista ethernet-based routers.

Look at hte bottom line card on this page: https://www.arista.com/en/qsg-7500n-series/7500n-series-line-cards

We have them in production right now.

@cmacnevin commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018): These are actually being used on Arista ethernet-based routers. Look at hte bottom line card on this page: https://www.arista.com/en/qsg-7500n-series/7500n-series-line-cards We have them in production right now.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@berahtlv commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018):

Then for clarity also sub-ports are needed, like "QSFP+ sub-port (10GE)", at least tried to make connection of assumed 40GE interface to 2x 10GE through patch panel (v2.5-beta1) and encountered an error:

<class 'django.db.utils.IntegrityError'>

duplicate key value violates unique constraint "dcim_interface__connected_interface_id_key"
DETAIL: Key (_connected_interface_id)=(14) already exists.

Just curious, how 12x 10GE or 3x 40GE are possible from 100GBASE-SR10 ... additional lanes are activated?

@berahtlv commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018): Then for clarity also sub-ports are needed, like "QSFP+ sub-port (10GE)", at least tried to make connection of assumed 40GE interface to 2x 10GE through patch panel (v2.5-beta1) and encountered an error: > <class 'django.db.utils.IntegrityError'> > > duplicate key value violates unique constraint "dcim_interface__connected_interface_id_key" > DETAIL: Key (_connected_interface_id)=(14) already exists. Just curious, how 12x 10GE or 3x 40GE are possible from 100GBASE-SR10 ... additional lanes are activated?
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018):

@berahtlv That is because, to my knowledge, the connected interface table has a 1:1 constraint on it. I believe this is changing once 2.5 comes out however.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2018): @berahtlv That is because, to my knowledge, the connected interface table has a 1:1 constraint on it. I believe this is changing once 2.5 comes out however.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cmacnevin commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2018):

The 12x10Ge thing is probably because tha was the physical architecture in the first versions of 100Gig - it was electrically 12 10Gig channels. This was before it became 4 x 25Gig channels. I guess that explains the 3 x 40 also, since the switch bandwidth was always there.

By that same logic, the 200Gig CFPX is actually a pair of 100Gig channels, which is annoyingly visible in the config. But I believe it cannot be broken out as a 100Gig separately, because of the style of the optic.

@cmacnevin commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2018): The 12x10Ge thing is probably because tha was the physical architecture in the first versions of 100Gig - it was electrically 12 10Gig channels. This was before it became 4 x 25Gig channels. I guess that explains the 3 x 40 also, since the switch bandwidth was always there. By that same logic, the 200Gig CFPX is actually a pair of 100Gig channels, which is annoyingly visible in the config. But I believe it cannot be broken out as a 100Gig separately, because of the style of the optic.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2018):

What is the exact change being proposed? How would you define this under IFACE_FF_CHOICES?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2018): What is the exact change being proposed? How would you define this under [IFACE_FF_CHOICES](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/constants.py#L105)?
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bendywendy commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2018):

I'd suggest adding:

'Ethernet (modular)',
[
[IFACE_FF_200GE_QSFP56, 'QSFP56 (200GE)'],
[IFACE_FF_400GE_QSFP56-DD, 'QSFP56-DD (400GE)'],
]
],

@bendywendy commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2018): I'd suggest adding: 'Ethernet (modular)', [ [IFACE_FF_200GE_QSFP56, 'QSFP56 (200GE)'], [IFACE_FF_400GE_QSFP56-DD, 'QSFP56-DD (400GE)'], ] ],
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#2100
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?