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

Add a cable type for backplane connections #2258

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:24:11 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @kasimon on GitHub (Jan 3, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.3
  • NetBox version: 2.5.2

Proposed Functionality

Add a cable type for backplane connections.

Use Case

When documenting for example bladecenters with blade servers in them, the (logical) network interface is located on the blade server (device) and is connected over the bladecenter backplane to the pysical port on the blade center chassis (device). This can be perfectly modeled with netbox 2.5's new cable resource, but the existing cable types do not apply to this use case. Having a "backplane" cable type would make it possible to better describe and document these connections.

Database Changes

None.

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @kasimon on GitHub (Jan 3, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.3 * NetBox version: 2.5.2 ### Proposed Functionality Add a cable type for backplane connections. ### Use Case When documenting for example bladecenters with blade servers in them, the (logical) network interface is located on the blade server (device) and is connected over the bladecenter backplane to the pysical port on the blade center chassis (device). This can be perfectly modeled with netbox 2.5's new cable resource, but the existing cable types do not apply to this use case. Having a "backplane" cable type would make it possible to better describe and document these connections. ### Database Changes None. ### External Dependencies None
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:24:11 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 3, 2019):

It doesn't make sense to create a "backplane" cable type, as backplane connections of course aren't cables. (This would invalidate NetBox's design principle of replicating the real world.)

I'd recommend against using cables to model relationships between chassis blades and backplane interfaces: If these are one-to-one connections, the relationship should be inherent (e.g. port 1 maps to slot 1, etc.). But if you want to, you can simply leave the cable type blank.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 3, 2019): It doesn't make sense to create a "backplane" cable type, as backplane connections of course aren't cables. (This would invalidate NetBox's design principle of replicating the real world.) I'd recommend against using cables to model relationships between chassis blades and backplane interfaces: If these are one-to-one connections, the relationship should be inherent (e.g. port 1 maps to slot 1, etc.). But if you want to, you can simply leave the cable type blank.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kasimon commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019):

Understood. I agree that using a cable is quite a hack for this use, but being able to use the trace functionality from the blade server to the switch port provides a lot of value to us, so we can live with the extra "virtual cable" objects. Maybe netbox will get an even better solution for this in the future.

@kasimon commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019): Understood. I agree that using a cable is quite a hack for this use, but being able to use the trace functionality from the blade server to the switch port provides a lot of value to us, so we can live with the extra "virtual cable" objects. Maybe netbox will get an even better solution for this in the future.
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#2258
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?