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

Allow modeling VPLS-based circuits #2186

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:23:06 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:23:06 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @michaelarnauts on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018).

Proposed Functionality

Currently, it's possible to define a circuit that goes from A to Z, but it's not possible to model a VPLS-based network where you have a circuit that arrives in multiple locations.

If the circuit could be expanded so it can have more then two endpoints (B, C, D, ... maybe), this would solve this usecase.

This is actually requested in #130.

Use Case

Be able to model a network were you have a multi-site connection. Example: You have one circuit in the main HQ, and one circuit in each of the 8 side offices.

You can see on the device in the main office that this connection connects to multiple endpoints.

Database Changes

Not sure

External Dependencies

Not sure

Originally created by @michaelarnauts on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018). ### Proposed Functionality Currently, it's possible to define a circuit that goes from A to Z, but it's not possible to model a VPLS-based network where you have a circuit that arrives in multiple locations. If the circuit could be expanded so it can have more then two endpoints (B, C, D, ... maybe), this would solve this usecase. This is actually requested in #130. ### Use Case Be able to model a network were you have a multi-site connection. Example: You have one circuit in the main HQ, and one circuit in each of the 8 side offices. You can see on the device in the main office that this connection connects to multiple endpoints. ### Database Changes Not sure ### External Dependencies Not sure
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:23:07 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:23:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018):

NetBox models only physical circuits, not overlays. This would be out of scope for the product.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018): NetBox models only physical circuits, not overlays. This would be out of scope for the product.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:23:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@michaelarnauts commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018):

Sure, although in our case, we have multiple physical circuits from our vendor that does this. We have a physical connection in one datacenter that is connected with two or more other datacenters.

@michaelarnauts commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2018): Sure, although in our case, we have multiple physical circuits from our vendor that does this. We have a physical connection in one datacenter that is connected with two or more other datacenters.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:23:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kmiller7851 commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2018):

I'll definitely agree that overlays shouldn't try to be modeled, as it would be hugely complicated and out of netbox's scope, but I personally still feel some grouping mechanism for circuits would be a fantastic addition. Consider this example:

I have 100 sites spread out across the US. For certain reasons, I have 10 separate VPLS services from the same exact provider, with 10 sites on each VPLS service. I add all 100 of these separate physical circuits to netbox.

How do I now tell which site belongs to which VPLS instance? I now have 100 circuit ids with the same provider and type, making it very confusing which one belongs to which. Just having a very basic grouping mechanism would be extremely helpful, just for organization purposes.

This grouping system doesn't even need to be solely for vpls/multipoint type circuits. Some people may find it helpful to group primary vs backup circuits, or just based off some other criteria that helps them keep things organized.

I made a small mockup of what I would personally love to see:

netbox-circuit-groups

@jeremystretch would you possibly consider including something like this?

@kmiller7851 commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2018): I'll definitely agree that overlays shouldn't try to be modeled, as it would be hugely complicated and out of netbox's scope, but I personally still feel some grouping mechanism for circuits would be a fantastic addition. Consider this example: I have 100 sites spread out across the US. For certain reasons, I have 10 separate VPLS services from the same exact provider, with 10 sites on each VPLS service. I add all 100 of these separate physical circuits to netbox. How do I now tell which site belongs to which VPLS instance? I now have 100 circuit ids with the same provider and type, making it very confusing which one belongs to which. Just having a very basic grouping mechanism would be extremely helpful, just for organization purposes. This grouping system doesn't even need to be solely for vpls/multipoint type circuits. Some people may find it helpful to group primary vs backup circuits, or just based off some other criteria that helps them keep things organized. I made a small mockup of what I would personally love to see: ![netbox-circuit-groups](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/26152849/49768950-0f300f00-fc93-11e8-91c0-60bdb65a6176.png) @jeremystretch would you possibly consider including something like this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:23:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nickzxcv commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2018):

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:00:44PM -0800, kmiller7851 wrote:

I'll definitely agree that overlays shouldn't try to be modeled, as it would be hugely complicated and out of netbox's scope, but I personally still feel some grouping mechanism for circuits would be a fantastic addition. Consider this example:

I have 100 sites spread out across the US. For certain reasons, I have 10 separate VPLS services from the same exact provider, with 10 sites on each VPLS service. I add all 100 of these separate physical circuits to netbox.

How do I now tell which site belongs to which VPLS instance? I now have 100 circuit ids with the same provider and type, making it very confusing which one belongs to which. Just having a very basic grouping mechanism would be extremely helpful, just for organization purposes.

This grouping system doesn't even need to be solely for vpls/multipoint type circuits. Some people may find it helpful to group primary vs backup circuits, or just based off some other criteria that helps them keep things organized.

I made a small mockup of what I would personally love to see:

netbox-circuit-groups

@jeremystretch would you possibly consider including something like this?

What about tags or custom fields?
-Nick

@nickzxcv commented on GitHub (Dec 11, 2018): On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:00:44PM -0800, kmiller7851 wrote: > I'll definitely agree that overlays shouldn't try to be modeled, as it would be hugely complicated and out of netbox's scope, but I personally still feel some grouping mechanism for circuits would be a fantastic addition. Consider this example: > > I have 100 sites spread out across the US. For certain reasons, I have 10 separate VPLS services from the same exact provider, with 10 sites on each VPLS service. I add all 100 of these separate physical circuits to netbox. > > How do I now tell which site belongs to which VPLS instance? I now have 100 circuit ids with the same provider and type, making it very confusing which one belongs to which. Just having a very basic grouping mechanism would be extremely helpful, just for organization purposes. > > This grouping system doesn't even need to be solely for vpls/multipoint type circuits. Some people may find it helpful to group primary vs backup circuits, or just based off some other criteria that helps them keep things organized. > > I made a small mockup of what I would personally love to see: > > ![netbox-circuit-groups](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/26152849/49768950-0f300f00-fc93-11e8-91c0-60bdb65a6176.png) > > @jeremystretch would you possibly consider including something like this? > What about tags or custom fields? -Nick
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#2186
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?