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

Can't model a break out panel connecting two devices #3831

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:31:24 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:24 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mngan on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @steffann on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.9
  • NetBox version: 2.8.6

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a panel with 1 MPO rear port breaking out out to 4 LC front ports
  2. Create a device with a 40G QSFP+ interface
  3. Create a device with a 10G SFP+ interface
  4. Connect 10G interface to LC front port
  5. Connect 40G interface to MPO rear port

Expected Behavior

On the last step, I would expect you to be able to connect the 40G interface to the MPO rear port

Observed Behavior

Instead, Netbox says Rear ports with multiple positions may only be connected to other rear ports

What I am trying to do is model a panel that allows me to break out 40/100G MPO ports to 10/25G LC ports. It seems the only way to achieve this is to add in a dummy panel that has MPO front ports and MPO rear ports.

10G Device --- LC/MPO Panel === 40G Device
Originally created by @mngan on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020). Originally assigned to: @steffann on GitHub. <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. This form is only for reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, DO NOT open an issue. Instead, post to our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss 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, and that any plugins have been disabled. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.9 * NetBox version: 2.8.6 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox. Begin with the creation of any necessary database objects and call out every operation being performed explicitly. If reporting a bug in the REST API, be sure to reconstruct the raw HTTP request(s) being made: Don't rely on a client library such as pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a panel with 1 MPO rear port breaking out out to 4 LC front ports 2. Create a device with a 40G QSFP+ interface 3. Create a device with a 10G SFP+ interface 4. Connect 10G interface to LC front port 5. Connect 40G interface to MPO rear port <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior On the last step, I would expect you to be able to connect the 40G interface to the MPO rear port <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior Instead, Netbox says `Rear ports with multiple positions may only be connected to other rear ports` What I am trying to do is model a panel that allows me to break out 40/100G MPO ports to 10/25G LC ports. It seems the only way to achieve this is to add in a dummy panel that has MPO front ports and MPO rear ports. ``` 10G Device --- LC/MPO Panel === 40G Device ```
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mngan commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020):

I guess another way to solve this is to build the LC and MPO ports as front ports, then create pairs of MPO ports on the rear side that can be patched together. One member of the pair maps to the LC ports and the other maps to the MPO port.

@mngan commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020): I guess another way to solve this is to build the LC and MPO ports as front ports, then create pairs of MPO ports on the rear side that can be patched together. One member of the pair maps to the LC ports and the other maps to the MPO port.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020):

I may be wrong but I believe this has been fixed in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/pull/4706

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020): I may be wrong but I believe this has been fixed in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/pull/4706
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mngan commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020):

#4706 doesn't fix this unfortunately. It still only lets passthrough ports connect to a rear port, and not interfaces.

"Rear ports with multiple positions may only be connected to other pass-through ports"

@mngan commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2020): #4706 doesn't fix this unfortunately. It still only lets passthrough ports connect to a rear port, and not interfaces. ["Rear ports with multiple positions may only be connected to other pass-through ports"](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/56ec4a6360772c5a404d34bedb4b767787267454/netbox/dcim/models/__init__.py#L2204 )
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2020):

@steffann can you look into this please? Seems related to #4706

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2020): @steffann can you look into this please? Seems related to #4706
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020):

NetBox currently doesn't support splitting QSFP ports into SFP ports. Neither breakout cables nor breakout patch panels are supported. This would be nice to have, but it would require that interfaces can have sub-interfaces that are treated as separate interfaces while sharing a single connection. This is currently not possible.

You can work around this by creating 4 separate interfaces (the sub-interfaces), creating a rear port that will be the QSFP and creating 4 fake front ports to connect to the sub-interfaces. So you'll end up with:

+------------------------------------+
|             Device                 |
|                                    |
| +------------+    +-----+          |
| | xe-0/0/0:0 +----+ FP0 +-----+    |
| +------------+    +-----+     |    |
|                               |    |
| +------------+    +-----+     |    |
| | xe-0/0/0:1 +----+ FP1 +---+ |    |
| +------------+    +-----+  +--+----+-+
|                            | QSFP RP +--------+
| +------------+    +-----+  +--+----+-+
| | xe-0/0/0:2 +----+ FP2 +---+ |    |
| +------------+    +-----+     |    |
|                               |    |
| +------------+    +-----+     |    |
| | xe-0/0/0:3 +----+ FP3 +-----+    |
| +------------+    +-----+          |
|                                    |
+------------------------------------+

I realise that this is a hack, but it is currently the best work-around that I can come up with.

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020): NetBox currently doesn't support splitting QSFP ports into SFP ports. Neither breakout cables nor breakout patch panels are supported. This would be nice to have, but it would require that interfaces can have sub-interfaces that are treated as separate interfaces while sharing a single connection. This is currently not possible. You can work around this by creating 4 separate interfaces (the sub-interfaces), creating a rear port that will be the QSFP and creating 4 fake front ports to connect to the sub-interfaces. So you'll end up with: ``` +------------------------------------+ | Device | | | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | xe-0/0/0:0 +----+ FP0 +-----+ | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | | | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | | xe-0/0/0:1 +----+ FP1 +---+ | | | +------------+ +-----+ +--+----+-+ | | QSFP RP +--------+ | +------------+ +-----+ +--+----+-+ | | xe-0/0/0:2 +----+ FP2 +---+ | | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | | | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | | xe-0/0/0:3 +----+ FP3 +-----+ | | +------------+ +-----+ | | | +------------------------------------+ ``` I realise that this is a hack, but it is currently the best work-around that I can come up with.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020):

The other work-around is of course to model the QSFP link from the interface to the breakout panel as 4 cables. An MPO cable actually contains 4 fiber pairs, and you could create them separately. In that case your breakout panel would be modeled with 4 rear ports (MPO fiber pair 1, MPO fiber pair 2, etc) with each one front port.

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020): The other work-around is of course to model the QSFP link from the interface to the breakout panel as 4 cables. An MPO cable actually contains 4 fiber pairs, and you could create them separately. In that case your breakout panel would be modeled with 4 rear ports (MPO fiber pair 1, MPO fiber pair 2, etc) with each one front port.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020):

I have discussed this with the maintainer team, and we don't have the capacity to change the database models and code to implement this at this time. I will mark this as a potential idea that might be reconsidered in the future (no promises!) and close it for now.

@steffann commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2020): I have discussed this with the maintainer team, and we don't have the capacity to change the database models and code to implement this at this time. I will mark this as a potential idea that might be reconsidered in the future (no promises!) and close it for now.
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#3831
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?