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

Config Context for racks #3733

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:30:50 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (May 29, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.9
  • NetBox version: 2.8.5

Proposed Functionality

Enable config context for racks.

Use Case

In some instances it is useful to apply config context by rack. For example, each rack can be given a group number so that each compute leaf and each management leaf can be assigned a spine up-links based on said group id.

Database Changes

External Dependencies

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (May 29, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.9 * NetBox version: 2.8.5 ### Proposed Functionality Enable config context for racks. ### Use Case In some instances it is useful to apply config context by rack. For example, each rack can be given a group number so that each compute leaf and each management leaf can be assigned a spine up-links based on said group id. ### Database Changes ### External Dependencies
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:30:50 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 29, 2020):

This was originally proposed under #1349 and omitted because IMO it's a very roundabout way of mapping attributes. The fact that a device exists within a specific physical rack is not typically pertinent for configuration purposes. Rather, what we're after when we make this reference is why the device is housed within a particular rack, which is likely ascertainable via other, more direct means.

For example, each rack can be given a group number so that each compute leaf and each management leaf can be assigned a spine up-links based on said group id.

Why tie this to the rack, instead of mapping leafs to spines directly? Doing so allows for much more flexibility.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 29, 2020): This was originally proposed under #1349 and omitted because IMO it's a very roundabout way of mapping attributes. The fact that a device exists within a specific physical rack is not typically pertinent for configuration purposes. Rather, what we're after when we make this reference is _why_ the device is housed within a particular rack, which is likely ascertainable via other, more direct means. > For example, each rack can be given a group number so that each compute leaf and each management leaf can be assigned a spine up-links based on said group id. Why tie this to the rack, instead of mapping leafs to spines directly? Doing so allows for much more flexibility.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (May 30, 2020):

I appreciate the feedback. The 3 switches in a rack tie back to a rack_id which is an arbitrator id starting at 1 per site.

The reality is that you are right. A netbox script could handle the interface assignments. I was thinking short sighted since my templates were developed before leveraging netbox for passing all the interfaces and config context. The rack context would have just been a temp bridge gap.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (May 30, 2020): I appreciate the feedback. The 3 switches in a rack tie back to a rack_id which is an arbitrator id starting at 1 per site. The reality is that you are right. A netbox script could handle the interface assignments. I was thinking short sighted since my templates were developed before leveraging netbox for passing all the interfaces and config context. The rack context would have just been a temp bridge gap.
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#3733
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?