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

Normalize Interface Names in "LLDP Neighbors" Tab nxos #2297

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:24:36 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:36 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @runeka on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019).

Environment

  • NetBox version: 2.5.3

This is almost the same issue as #1621 but on nxos Cisco Nexus. Napalm for Nexus LLDP returns a short interface name for local device and full interface name for remote device. This makes it impossible to match interface naming in Netbox.

leaf2# sh lldp neighbors
Capability codes:
(R) Router, (B) Bridge, (T) Telephone, (C) DOCSIS Cable Device
(W) WLAN Access Point, (P) Repeater, (S) Station, (O) Other
Device ID Local Intf Hold-time Capability Port ID
leaf1.example.com
Eth1/47 120 BR Ethernet1/47

Steps to Reproduce

  1. LLDP Neighbors tab on Cisco Nexus Switches.

Expected Behavior

I expected that interface naming matching LLDP naming would work.

Observed Behavior

Impossible to match interfaces correctly.

Originally created by @runeka on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019). ### Environment * NetBox version: 2.5.3 This is almost the same issue as #1621 but on nxos Cisco Nexus. Napalm for Nexus LLDP returns a short interface name for local device and full interface name for remote device. This makes it impossible to match interface naming in Netbox. leaf2# sh lldp neighbors Capability codes: (R) Router, (B) Bridge, (T) Telephone, (C) DOCSIS Cable Device (W) WLAN Access Point, (P) Repeater, (S) Station, (O) Other Device ID Local Intf Hold-time Capability Port ID leaf1.example.com **Eth1/47** 120 BR **Ethernet1/47** ### Steps to Reproduce 1. LLDP Neighbors tab on Cisco Nexus Switches. ### Expected Behavior I expected that interface naming matching LLDP naming would work. ### Observed Behavior Impossible to match interfaces correctly.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:24:36 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019):

We're not going to keep tweaking the logic to accommodate the quirks of different platforms. You'll need to name your interfaces the way the platform reports them if LLDP validation is important. If a platform is reporting interfaces inconsistently, that's an issue to be raised with the vendor.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019): We're not going to keep tweaking the logic to accommodate the quirks of different platforms. You'll need to name your interfaces the way the platform reports them if LLDP validation is important. If a platform is reporting interfaces inconsistently, that's an issue to be raised with the vendor.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:24:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@runeka commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019):

I do see your point. But it is impossible to match it as Cisco report interfaces local Eth and remote Ethernet. It is possible to match local, but remote will never match. Why not apply the same fix as for #1621 ?

@runeka commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2019): I do see your point. But it is impossible to match it as Cisco report interfaces local Eth and remote Ethernet. It is possible to match local, but remote will never match. Why not apply the same fix as for #1621 ?
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#2297
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?