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

specify the "Rack Group" when creating a termination point #2409

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:25:49 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:49 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @gjvc on GitHub (Feb 22, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7
  • NetBox version: 2.5.7

Proposed Functionality

I would like to be able to (optionally or not) specify the "Rack Group" when creating a termination point (A- or Z-side) of a Circuit in Netbox, because "Site" alone is not specific enough.

Use Case

if there are multiple cages (each cage having its own patch panel, and being represented by a "Rack Group") within a datacentre ("Site"), and cross-connects between them, there needs to be some way to specify the cage ("Rack Group") on each side, and currently (v2.5.7), there is only a dropdown for "Site".

Database Changes

Add Foreign Key to CircuitTermination for Rack Group

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @gjvc on GitHub (Feb 22, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.7 * NetBox version: 2.5.7 ### Proposed Functionality I would like to be able to (optionally or not) specify the "Rack Group" when creating a termination point (A- or Z-side) of a Circuit in Netbox, because "Site" alone is not specific enough. ### Use Case if there are multiple cages (each cage having its own patch panel, and being represented by a "Rack Group") within a datacentre ("Site"), and cross-connects between them, there needs to be some way to specify the cage ("Rack Group") on each side, and currently (v2.5.7), there is only a dropdown for "Site". ### Database Changes Add Foreign Key to CircuitTermination for Rack Group ### External Dependencies None
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:25:49 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019):

Is there a reason you cannot connect this circuit directly to a device?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019): Is there a reason you cannot connect this circuit directly to a device?
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gjvc commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019):

Good question :-). I wish to model switch port to local patch panel to remote patch panel. This is two connections in the real world, and I'd like to reflect that in netbox.

@gjvc commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019): Good question :-). I wish to model switch port to local patch panel to remote patch panel. This is two connections in the real world, and I'd like to reflect that in netbox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019):

Good question :-). I wish to model switch port to local patch panel to remote patch panel. This is two connections in the real world, and I'd like to reflect that in netbox.

Personally, I would model this as a regular connection, however you can also model this as a circuit, but it isn't what I would consider 100% proper:

  • Create Circuit
  • Create "A" side
  • Connect "A" side to rear port on PP1
  • Create "Z" side
  • Connect "Z" side to rear port on PP2

Is this what you were looking for?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2019): > Good question :-). I wish to model switch port to local patch panel to remote patch panel. This is two connections in the real world, and I'd like to reflect that in netbox. Personally, I would model this as a regular connection, however you can also model this as a circuit, but it isn't what I would consider 100% proper: * Create Circuit * Create "A" side * Connect "A" side to rear port on PP1 * Create "Z" side * Connect "Z" side to rear port on PP2 Is this what you were looking for?
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2019):

This limitation will be addressed in v2.6. For now, you can make the connection to the circuit termination starting from the patch panel side.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 27, 2019): This limitation will be addressed in v2.6. For now, you can make the connection to the circuit termination starting from the patch panel side.
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#2409
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?