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 support for PON modular interface types #3430

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:29:03 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:03 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @janchrillesen on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.8
  • NetBox version: 2.7.8

Proposed Functionality

Add support for PON types of optics/modules. This has been proposed earlier in issue 2882 where it was requested to provide a complete list of port types. The following is the types we have been able to identify

Category: PON modular

SFP (GPON OLT) 2,5G
SFP (XGS-PON OLT) 10G
SFP (CPON OLT) 10G/2,5G
SFP (EPON OLT) 1G
SFP (EPON OLT) 10G
SFP (DWDM-PON OLT) 10G
XFP (XGS-PON OLT) 10G
XFP (DWDM-PON OLT) 10G

Use Case

This enhancement would allow us to properly support the PON interfaces on Nokia ISAM (and many other PON platforms). PON is a widely used access technology for residential fiber. Currently we're using ethernet ports to model the PON ports. Please notice that the PON optics are different from ethernet SFP and XFP modules.

Database Changes

The proposed change would require a number of new interface types to be added to the existing list of types. However no new fields are required

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @janchrillesen on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.8 * NetBox version: 2.7.8 ### Proposed Functionality Add support for PON types of optics/modules. This has been proposed earlier in issue 2882 where it was requested to provide a complete list of port types. The following is the types we have been able to identify Category: PON modular SFP (GPON OLT) 2,5G SFP (XGS-PON OLT) 10G SFP (CPON OLT) 10G/2,5G SFP (EPON OLT) 1G SFP (EPON OLT) 10G SFP (DWDM-PON OLT) 10G XFP (XGS-PON OLT) 10G XFP (DWDM-PON OLT) 10G ### Use Case This enhancement would allow us to properly support the PON interfaces on Nokia ISAM (and many other PON platforms). PON is a widely used access technology for residential fiber. Currently we're using ethernet ports to model the PON ports. Please notice that the PON optics are different from ethernet SFP and XFP modules. ### Database Changes The proposed change would require a number of new interface types to be added to the existing list of types. However no new fields are required ### External Dependencies None
adam added the type: featurestatus: needs ownerpending closure labels 2025-12-29 18:29:03 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:29:03 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020):

Just curious: how do you model a PON based access network in NetBox? How’s the passive splitter represented etc?

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020): Just curious: how do you model a PON based access network in NetBox? How’s the passive splitter represented etc?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020):

We typically don't model speed with interface port/types, it may seem like it but it is modeled as a by-product of the type (SFP+ is 10GE but it can also be 8GFC or 16GFC)

With that in mind, are these:

SFP (EPON OLT) 1G
SFP (EPON OLT) 10G

two discrete interface types?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2020): We typically don't model speed with interface port/types, it may seem like it but it is modeled as a by-product of the type (SFP+ is 10GE but it can also be 8GFC or 16GFC) With that in mind, are these: SFP (EPON OLT) 1G SFP (EPON OLT) 10G two discrete interface types?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@janchrillesen commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2020):

Just curious: how do you model a PON based access network in NetBox? How’s the passive splitter represented etc?

We have decided to implement the splitter as a device with interfaces. For instance a 1:32 splitter has 33 interfaces (one uplink and 32 customer ports) - same concept as an unmanaged switch/hub. The concept of front and rear ports used for DDF/ODF panels, does not seem to allow a one-to-many mapping. It's the same issue with modelling DWDM filters.

That's the simple answer. It gets a bit more complicated when you have physical 1:32 splitters but want to do 1:64 or 1:128 split. It's often implemented by chaining splitters, for instance one 1:2 splitter feeding 2x 1:32 splitters, for a 1:64 split. We're still trying to decide on the best way to do this.

  • just model it as a 64 port splitter. Simple but makes changing the split ratio from 64 to 32 harder
  • model it as a device with groups of ports (for instance port 1:[1-32], 2[1-32]
  • model the actual implemention with 3 different splitters cabled together. This adds some complexity since all 3 splitters can be housed as modules within 1 rack unit, and netbox currently doesn't fully support the concept of modular devices (inventory is different from, say, linecards). To add further complexity, not all over installations have homerun of fiber, and the different splitters belonging to a single PON can be spread across several locations.

Our usecase is purely to allocate splitter ports for end-users, and modelling the cabling from splitter towards OLT

@janchrillesen commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2020): > Just curious: how do you model a PON based access network in NetBox? How’s the passive splitter represented etc? We have decided to implement the splitter as a device with interfaces. For instance a 1:32 splitter has 33 interfaces (one uplink and 32 customer ports) - same concept as an unmanaged switch/hub. The concept of front and rear ports used for DDF/ODF panels, does not seem to allow a one-to-many mapping. It's the same issue with modelling DWDM filters. That's the simple answer. It gets a bit more complicated when you have physical 1:32 splitters but want to do 1:64 or 1:128 split. It's often implemented by chaining splitters, for instance one 1:2 splitter feeding 2x 1:32 splitters, for a 1:64 split. We're still trying to decide on the best way to do this. - just model it as a 64 port splitter. Simple but makes changing the split ratio from 64 to 32 harder - model it as a device with groups of ports (for instance port 1:[1-32], 2[1-32] - model the actual implemention with 3 different splitters cabled together. This adds some complexity since all 3 splitters can be housed as modules within 1 rack unit, and netbox currently doesn't fully support the concept of modular devices (inventory is different from, say, linecards). To add further complexity, not all over installations have homerun of fiber, and the different splitters belonging to a single PON can be spread across several locations. Our usecase is purely to allocate splitter ports for end-users, and modelling the cabling from splitter towards OLT
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@janchrillesen commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2020):

With that in mind, are these:

SFP (EPON OLT) 1G
SFP (EPON OLT) 10G

They are different types. There exist a SFP based module that support 1G only, and SFP+ based modules that supports 10G and other support dual-rate 1G+10G (very similar to ethernet modules). Some OLT vendors calls their 10G based modules SFP, and not SFP+, however I think this is a mistake and merely used to differentiate between SFP and XFP form factors.
The correct solution would be to change the formfactor of the 10G EPON from SFP to SFP+

  • SFP (EPON OLT) 1G
  • SFP+ (EPON OLT) 10G

Should I update the original request to reflect this, or just leave it here as a comment?

@janchrillesen commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2020): > With that in mind, are these: > > SFP (EPON OLT) 1G > SFP (EPON OLT) 10G They are different types. There exist a SFP based module that support 1G only, and SFP+ based modules that supports 10G and other support dual-rate 1G+10G (very similar to ethernet modules). Some OLT vendors calls their 10G based modules SFP, and not SFP+, however I think this is a mistake and merely used to differentiate between SFP and XFP form factors. The correct solution would be to change the formfactor of the 10G EPON from SFP to SFP+ - SFP (EPON OLT) 1G - SFP+ (EPON OLT) 10G Should I update the original request to reflect this, or just leave it here as a comment?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2020):

Can anyone provide an authoritative list of the PON interface types currently available on the market? I'm not familiar with the technology myself and we need to be sure interface types we add are real and correct. It would also be nice to get them all added at the same time.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2020): Can anyone provide an authoritative list of the PON interface types currently available on the market? I'm not familiar with the technology myself and we need to be sure interface types we add are real and correct. It would also be nice to get them all added at the same time.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2020):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2020): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nicolasbassano commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2020):

It would be great for this case to be re-opened and implemented.

Netbox lacks proper identification for optical interfaces used by access service providers in FTTx deployments.

Support for PON types on the Interfaces templates would be beneficial for those who deal with fiber documentation.

@nicolasbassano commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2020): It would be great for this case to be re-opened and implemented. Netbox lacks proper identification for optical interfaces used by access service providers in FTTx deployments. Support for PON types on the Interfaces templates would be beneficial for those who deal with fiber documentation.
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 pending closure status: needs owner 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#3430
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?