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

Expand the number of Rear Port template positions #4096

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:33:06 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:06 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @proudbro on GitHub (Sep 11, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.9
  • NetBox version: 2.8.9

Proposed Functionality

Hello
Is it possible to increase the number of positions for rear port template to 288 or more? The limit is now set to 64 which is also written in the documentation

Use Case

We create a lot of optical fiber panels with many front ports (more then 64) which are aggregated into one bulk cable. To correctly display such device in Netbox I link a bunch of front ports with one rear port which seems to correspond to reality (at this point i don't care about individual fibers). Further, as a rule, this fiber panel connects to a same device with cable object. With a limit of 64 positions it forces to create more than one Rear Port and more than one Cable but in reality it is not so.

Database Changes

Have to be

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @proudbro on GitHub (Sep 11, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. 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: 3.6.9 * NetBox version: 2.8.9 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality Hello Is it possible to increase the number of positions for rear port template to 288 or more? The limit is now set to 64 which is also written in the [documentation](https://netbox.readthedocs.io/en/stable/core-functionality/device-types/#rear-port-templates) <!-- 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 create a lot of optical fiber panels with many front ports (more then 64) which are aggregated into one bulk cable. To correctly display such device in Netbox I link a bunch of front ports with one rear port which seems to correspond to reality (at this point i don't care about individual fibers). Further, as a rule, this fiber panel connects to a same device with cable object. With a limit of 64 positions it forces to create more than one Rear Port and more than one Cable but in reality it is not so. <!-- 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 Have to be <!-- List any new dependencies on external libraries or services that this new feature would introduce. For example, does the proposal require the installation of a new Python package? (Not all new features introduce new dependencies.) --> ### External Dependencies None
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:33:06 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:33:06 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Sep 13, 2020):

I don't see a problem with this, but it could impose some weird performance issues. I think a deeper look into this might be required.

Further, is 288 the best number?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Sep 13, 2020): I don't see a problem with this, but it could impose some weird performance issues. I think a deeper look into this might be required. Further, is 288 the best number?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2020):

1024 should probably suffice. I don't think we were considering fiber plant modeling with the original implementation of pass-through ports.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2020): 1024 should probably suffice. I don't think we were considering fiber plant modeling with the original implementation of pass-through ports.
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#4096
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?