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 stacking interfaces for stackable switches #238

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:19:57 +01:00 by adam · 12 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:57 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sschwetz on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016).

Is it possible to add a switchport type of "stacking" to allow network diagrams etc to show when switches are stacked in the topography. I have currently just added the module ports as network ports, and linked them as 1gb ethernet, but they are really stacking cables. It all works, it just doesn't site nice with my OCD ;-)

I have to do it this way, as the stacked switches are in separate racks.

Originally created by @sschwetz on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016). Is it possible to add a switchport type of "stacking" to allow network diagrams etc to show when switches are stacked in the topography. I have currently just added the module ports as network ports, and linked them as 1gb ethernet, but they are really stacking cables. It all works, it just doesn't site nice with my OCD ;-) I have to do it this way, as the stacked switches are in separate racks.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 16:19:57 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:19:57 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

What type of cabling/port do these use? E.g. what should we call it in the list of interface types?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): What type of cabling/port do these use? E.g. what should we call it in the list of interface types?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

Cisco calls them StackWise & StackWise Plus ports. Juniper calls them Virtual Chassis Ports.

Looking through IOS devices that are stacked, I see no special port labels, just switch status and # of the member in the stack. I am pretty sure only stack cable ports can be used here.

In JUNOS I see port labeling like vcp-1/3/0. With some JUNOS platforms a special VC port can be used or any regular port can be used.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): Cisco calls them StackWise & StackWise Plus ports. Juniper calls them Virtual Chassis Ports. Looking through IOS devices that are stacked, I see no special port labels, just switch status and # of the member in the stack. I am pretty sure only stack cable ports can be used here. In JUNOS I see port labeling like vcp-1/3/0. With some JUNOS platforms a special VC port can be used or any regular port can be used. - [JUNOS show virtual chassis status](http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/reference/command-summary/show-virtual-chassis-status-mx-series.html) - [JUNOS EX4200/4500 VC Planning](http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/requirements/virtual-chassis-ex4200-ex4500-hardware-planning.html) - [JUNOS VC Config](http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos16.1/topics/task/configuration/virtual-chassis-ex4200-uplink-vcp-cli.html) - [Cisco Catalyst 3750 Series Stacks](http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-3750-series-switches/prod_white_paper09186a00801b096a.html)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

Is it worth enumerating the various types of proprietary stacking interfaces? Should we just define a "stacking" or "virtual chassis" interface type?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): Is it worth enumerating the various types of proprietary stacking interfaces? Should we just define a "stacking" or "virtual chassis" interface type?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cstueckrath commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

IBM/Lenovo Bladecenter switches are usually stacked by a bonded 2x 10G DAC-Cable or SFP+

@cstueckrath commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): IBM/Lenovo Bladecenter switches are usually stacked by a bonded 2x 10G DAC-Cable or SFP+
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:19:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

Similarly, Juniper EX4300s use normal QSFP+ interfaces. In those cases I'd suggest people just use the existing interface types.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): Similarly, Juniper EX4300s use normal QSFP+ interfaces. In those cases I'd suggest people just use the existing interface types.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

Yea I would agree with @jeremystretch.

Would a custom port attribute help to identify it as a stack/VC port? This could be addressed by custom fields #129. If it was not a custom attribute, then it would be more obvious to users and prevent these future requests, but a field would meet this need to identify this special port.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): Yea I would agree with @jeremystretch. Would a custom port attribute help to identify it as a stack/VC port? This could be addressed by custom fields #129. If it was not a custom attribute, then it would be more obvious to users and prevent these future requests, but a field would meet this need to identify this special port.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

Would a custom port attribute help to identify it as a stack/VC port?

We need to define at least one interface type to cover the proprietary types. It could be a generic "Stacking" type (similar to the existing "Virtual" type) or we could create one for each physical specifiction (e.g. "Cisco StackWise," "Cisco StackWise Plus," etc.).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): > Would a custom port attribute help to identify it as a stack/VC port? We need to define at least one interface type to cover the proprietary types. It could be a generic "Stacking" type (similar to the existing "Virtual" type) or we could create one for each physical specifiction (e.g. "Cisco StackWise," "Cisco StackWise Plus," etc.).
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016):

@jeremystretch That'e fine with me. I did not figure you wanted to support that given potential creep towards cluster/stack support requests on the nodes/devices themselves.

Can you also add a POE type also?

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jul 19, 2016): @jeremystretch That'e fine with me. I did not figure you wanted to support that given potential creep towards cluster/stack support requests on the nodes/devices themselves. Can you also add a POE type also?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sschwetz commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2016):

On HP Procurves they are called "Stacking Ports" and they are modules in seperate cards.
HP Comware they are bonded SPF+ or QSPF+ Ports

@sschwetz commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2016): On HP Procurves they are called "Stacking Ports" and they are modules in seperate cards. HP Comware they are bonded SPF+ or QSPF+ Ports
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2016):

duplicate of #99

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2016): duplicate of #99
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2016):

This is just for adding one or more new interface form factors for "stacking" ports. #99 deals with treating multiple devices as a single logical entity.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2016): This is just for adding one or more new interface form factors for "stacking" ports. #99 deals with treating multiple devices as a single logical entity.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:20:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2016):

Folding this into #167 as part of a larger initiative to add more interface form factors.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 28, 2016): Folding this into #167 as part of a larger initiative to add more interface form factors.
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: duplicate
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#238
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?