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 filtering cables by tenant of connected device #2476

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:19:12 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:19:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @xonacs on GitHub (Mar 22, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.6
  • NetBox version: 2.5.8

Proposed Functionality

Currently, a tenant's device might be linked to another tenant or provider device via one ore more cables. It is not possible to see easily identify all connections across tenants. Therefore Cables need to have a tenant ownership or else there needs to be a view that shows all cables related to a tenant.

Use Case

As a data center and that uses Netbox we maintain a full list of equipment, customer and own. Currently it is possible to assign an ID to all services provided to a customer (tenant). Prior to the introduction of cables in Netbox, a Circuit (type: "Uplink") was used to indicate the physical link providing the customer connectivity. The tenant of such an ID was the customer. This allows for a comprehensive view of everything a customer(tenant) has, i.e. all devices, racks, vlans, IPs, physical uplinks, circuits etc.

Having a cable that is assignable to a tenant or being able to filter all cables connecting to a tenant's device would restore this ability without having to resort to using Circuits (which is incorrect as it creates two cables when there would be one).

Database Changes

External Dependencies

Originally created by @xonacs on GitHub (Mar 22, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.6 * NetBox version: 2.5.8 ### Proposed Functionality Currently, a tenant's device might be linked to another tenant or provider device via one ore more cables. It is not possible to see easily identify all connections across tenants. Therefore Cables need to have a tenant ownership or else there needs to be a view that shows all cables related to a tenant. ### Use Case As a data center and that uses Netbox we maintain a full list of equipment, customer and own. Currently it is possible to assign an ID to all services provided to a customer (tenant). Prior to the introduction of cables in Netbox, a Circuit (type: "Uplink") was used to indicate the physical link providing the customer connectivity. The tenant of such an ID was the customer. This allows for a comprehensive view of everything a customer(tenant) has, i.e. all devices, racks, vlans, IPs, physical uplinks, circuits etc. Having a cable that is assignable to a tenant or being able to filter all cables connecting to a tenant's device would restore this ability without having to resort to using Circuits (which is incorrect as it creates two cables when there would be one). ### Database Changes ### External Dependencies
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:19:12 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:19:13 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:19:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 22, 2019):

There is no need to declare an explicit relationship to a tenant on the cable model, as the endpoints of a cable already have this association. (It also begs the question: who would own a cable connecting tenants A and B?)

It sounds like you want to be able to filter cables based on the tenant assigned to either end. If this is the case, please revise your FR to better capture the use case and remove the proposed relationship (or close this and open a new FR if you prefer).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 22, 2019): There is no need to declare an explicit relationship to a tenant on the cable model, as the endpoints of a cable already have this association. (It also begs the question: who would own a cable connecting tenants A and B?) It sounds like you want to be able to filter cables based on the tenant assigned to either end. If this is the case, please revise your FR to better capture the use case and remove the proposed relationship (or close this and open a new FR if you prefer).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:19:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@xonacs commented on GitHub (Mar 23, 2019):

Updated FR, thanks.

@xonacs commented on GitHub (Mar 23, 2019): Updated FR, thanks.
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: accepted type: feature
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#2476
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?