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

Support Lockers/Cabinets sub-divided racks #2687

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @marcoceppi on GitHub (Jun 22, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.8
  • NetBox version: 2.6.0

Proposed Functionality

Support for sub-dividing Racks into logical partitions. Often time in facilities, especially collocation facilities, racks are split into cabinets / lockers to provide a smaller RU footprint for tenants. When creating a rack, a netbox admin would be able to split a rack into smaller units which have independent rack statuses (planned, active, reserved, available, etc).

Use Case

We currently offer facilities where we provide 0RU lockers which divide our racks in 1/2 or 1/4 increments. Each locker is assigned to a tenant. We currently do not have a method for modeling this idea of a sub-divided rack in Netbox to review allocated locker spaces, available lockers, and which tenant occupies a spot.

The closes we've gotten is to place a "parent" device in a rack the size of the locker, in this case a 36RU rack split 4 ways at 9RU a piece.

Selection_696

The downside to this though, is the rack appears fully allocated when it is in fact empty (in this example)

Selection_697

Database Changes

May need to support the idea of a Rack Child <=> Parent relationship, or to allow for Devices to be a partition, with it's own unique status.

Originally created by @marcoceppi on GitHub (Jun 22, 2019). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for proposing specific new features or enhancements. If you have a general idea or question, please post to our mailing list instead of opening an issue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss NOTE: Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which significantly extend NetBox's feature scope. Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.8 * NetBox version: 2.6.0 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality Support for sub-dividing Racks into logical partitions. Often time in facilities, especially collocation facilities, racks are split into cabinets / lockers to provide a smaller RU footprint for tenants. When creating a rack, a netbox admin would be able to split a rack into smaller units which have independent rack statuses (planned, active, reserved, available, etc). <!-- Convey an example use case for your proposed feature. Write from the perspective of a NetBox user who would benefit from the proposed functionality and describe how. ---> ### Use Case We currently offer facilities where we provide 0RU lockers which divide our racks in 1/2 or 1/4 increments. Each locker is assigned to a tenant. We currently do not have a method for modeling this idea of a sub-divided rack in Netbox to review allocated locker spaces, available lockers, and which tenant occupies a spot. The closes we've gotten is to place a "parent" device in a rack the size of the locker, in this case a 36RU rack split 4 ways at 9RU a piece. ![Selection_696](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/70613/59956537-f339d100-945e-11e9-8b0c-8f9c2e97baba.png) The downside to this though, is the rack appears fully allocated when it is in fact empty (in this example) ![Selection_697](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/70613/59956572-1bc1cb00-945f-11e9-9f46-b83eb1ccd5cf.png) <!-- Note any changes to the database schema necessary to support the new feature. For example, does the proposal require adding a new model or field? (Not all new features require database changes.) ---> ### Database Changes May need to support the idea of a Rack Child <=> Parent relationship, or to allow for Devices to be a partition, with it's own unique status.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

We're not entertaining any major changes to the data model at this time. If you need to model subsections of racks, consider modeling each "locker" as an independent rack, using a RackGroup to organize related lockers.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): We're not entertaining any major changes to the data model at this time. If you need to model subsections of racks, consider modeling each "locker" as an independent rack, using a RackGroup to organize related lockers.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcoceppi commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

@jeremystretch Can Rack groups encompass Rack Groups? For example we have a unique design where three racks compose a wedge, So Wedge 1 is comprised of a full rack, then two racks divided into four customer zones. So Wedge 1 Rack A has four lockers, and Wedge 1 Rack B has four lockers then Wedge 1 F is our facility rack. These are all a Wedge 1 Rack Group, is is possible to have a Wedge 1 Rack Group then have it contain a rack plus two other rack groups which are the four lockers per rack?

Also, I'm happy to contribute this feature, would it be rejected if I did so?

@marcoceppi commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): @jeremystretch Can Rack groups encompass Rack Groups? For example we have a unique design where three racks compose a wedge, So Wedge 1 is comprised of a full rack, then two racks divided into four customer zones. So Wedge 1 Rack A has four lockers, and Wedge 1 Rack B has four lockers then Wedge 1 F is our facility rack. These are all a Wedge 1 Rack Group, is is possible to have a Wedge 1 Rack Group then have it contain a rack plus two other rack groups which are the four lockers per rack? Also, I'm happy to contribute this feature, would it be rejected if I did so?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

Can Rack groups encompass Rack Groups?

Not currently, but #1754 has been opened for this.

Also, I'm happy to contribute this feature, would it be rejected if I did so?

To be clear, this FR has already been rejected. Pull requests can be submitted only for accepted FRs. Of course, you're welcome to help with any of the 100+ other FRs we have in the backlog (including #1754).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): > Can Rack groups encompass Rack Groups? Not currently, but #1754 has been opened for this. > Also, I'm happy to contribute this feature, would it be rejected if I did so? To be clear, this FR has already been rejected. Pull requests can be submitted only for accepted FRs. Of course, you're welcome to help with any of the 100+ other FRs we have in the backlog (including #1754).
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#2687
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?