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 to more bond types (not just LACP) #4294

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:34:29 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:29 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @anubisg1 on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: unknown
  • NetBox version: 2.8.8

Proposed Functionality

Today we only support LAG virtual interface and the ability to add physical interfaces to a LAG as members.
This is good for network switches/routers but is not enough for servers.

A server could configure its ports in a bond different than LACP, for example an active/active or active/standby.
Linux supports up to 7 modes, current models only support mode 4 (i.e. LACP)

mode=0 (balance-rr)
mode=1 (active-backup)
mode=2 (balance-xor)
mode=3 (broadcast)
mode=4 (802.3ad)
mode=5 (balance-tlb)
mode=6 (balance-alb)

I'm not saying we need to support all of them, but maybe we can create a "generic bond interface"

Use Case

Modeling server's connectivity into netbox , connectivity that doesn't fit into LACP bonding.

Database Changes

add more virtual interface types where a physical interface can belong to.

External Dependencies

none

Originally created by @anubisg1 on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: unknown * NetBox version: 2.8.8 ### Proposed Functionality Today we only support LAG virtual interface and the ability to add physical interfaces to a LAG as members. This is good for network switches/routers but is not enough for servers. A server could configure its ports in a bond different than LACP, for example an active/active or active/standby. Linux supports up to 7 modes, current models only support mode 4 (i.e. LACP) mode=0 (balance-rr) mode=1 (active-backup) mode=2 (balance-xor) mode=3 (broadcast) mode=4 (802.3ad) mode=5 (balance-tlb) mode=6 (balance-alb) I'm not saying we need to support all of them, but maybe we can create a "generic bond interface" ### Use Case Modeling server's connectivity into netbox , connectivity that doesn't fit into LACP bonding. ### Database Changes add more virtual interface types where a physical interface can belong to. ### External Dependencies none
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:34:29 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020):

The LAG interface type does not imply the use of LACP; it is a generic type that merely indicates the bonding of multiple physical groups. NetBox does not model LAG protocols.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020): The LAG interface type does not imply the use of LACP; it is a generic type that merely indicates the bonding of multiple physical groups. NetBox does not model LAG protocols.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@anubisg1 commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020):

can i at least suggest to rename it then? LAG quiet uniquely identifies Link AGgregaion (lacp or pagp) and it's therefore ambiguous and confusing

@anubisg1 commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020): can i at least suggest to rename it then? LAG quiet uniquely identifies Link AGgregaion (lacp or pagp) and it's therefore ambiguous and confusing
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020):

Again, the term LAG has nothing to do with LACP specifically. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 23, 2020): Again, the term LAG has nothing to do with LACP specifically. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
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#4294
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?