starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Cable type request: LC Simplex #4328

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Infiniverse on GitHub (Dec 4, 2020).

Environment

  • NetBox version: v2.9.9

Proposed Functionality

We have a mix of LC Simplex and LC Duplex cables. Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC.

Use Case

Bi-directional optics are now very common, and in networks that use lots of them (FTTP for example) we tend to number ports individually (Simplex) instead of by pair (Duplex). That means that we have a mix of ports that are single port ports, and double port ports. Network doesn't allow us to formally record this distinction. If we use 'LC' as a port type we cannot immedaitely tell whether it's a single cable or a double cable connection.

By allowing a port type to be specified as Simplex or Duplex on fibre connectors (LC) it would greatly aid our ability to formally document the network.

Database Changes

External Dependencies

Originally created by @Infiniverse on GitHub (Dec 4, 2020). <!-- 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/g/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 * NetBox version: v2.9.9 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality We have a mix of LC Simplex and LC Duplex cables. Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC. <!-- 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 Bi-directional optics are now very common, and in networks that use lots of them (FTTP for example) we tend to number ports individually (Simplex) instead of by pair (Duplex). That means that we have a mix of ports that are single port ports, and double port ports. Network doesn't allow us to formally record this distinction. If we use 'LC' as a port type we cannot immedaitely tell whether it's a single cable or a double cable connection. By allowing a port type to be specified as Simplex or Duplex on fibre connectors (LC) it would greatly aid our ability to formally document the network. <!-- 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 <!-- 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
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2020):

This issue is pending closure as it does not conform to one of the provided templates as required by the contributing guide. If you'd like to request that your issue be re-opened, please first update the content so that it matches the appropriate template (this may require rewriting your issue entirely).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2020): This issue is pending closure as it does not conform to one of the [provided templates](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/new/choose) as required by the [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md). If you'd like to request that your issue be re-opened, please first update the content so that it matches the appropriate template (this may require rewriting your issue entirely).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020):

Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC.

The cable media (e.g. OM3 or OS1) is defined independently from the termination type at either end. It would seem more accurate to clarify the cable media as simplex rather than that the termination IMO.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2020): > Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC. The cable media (e.g. OM3 or OS1) is defined independently from the termination type at either end. It would seem more accurate to clarify the cable media as simplex rather than that the termination IMO.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2021):

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 (Jan 23, 2021): 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 18:34:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Infiniverse commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2021):

We have a mix of simplex and duplex circuits terminating on patch panels. We need to account for all the fibres individually from the rear or the patch panel. All the front ports are labelled individually and interfaces are connected simplex with a single patch cable or duplex with two patch cables.

I am struggling to see how to document this effectively. We definitely have a difference between LC simplex and duplex connections between equipment and patch panels.

Without some distinction to model this we will end up with irregular patch panel models where we need to combine pairs of ports onto single ports with duplex labelling (1/2) along side simplex labelling (3) and (4). This means that a N port patch panel needs to be documented irregularly as a less than N port device. This irregularity makes it much harder to orchestrate against and keep in sync with other databases.

What do you recommend?

@Infiniverse commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2021): We have a mix of simplex and duplex circuits terminating on patch panels. We need to account for all the fibres individually from the rear or the patch panel. All the front ports are labelled individually and interfaces are connected simplex with a single patch cable or duplex with two patch cables. I am struggling to see how to document this effectively. We definitely have a difference between LC simplex and duplex connections between equipment and patch panels. Without some distinction to model this we will end up with irregular patch panel models where we need to combine pairs of ports onto single ports with duplex labelling (1/2) along side simplex labelling (3) and (4). This means that a N port patch panel needs to be documented irregularly as a less than N port device. This irregularity makes it much harder to orchestrate against and keep in sync with other databases. What do you recommend?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bryanward-net commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2021):

I also ran into trouble trying to document my fiber plant this way. I treat all my fiber plant as single strands, but then often use 2 strands to connect devices. This is getting worse as we now spread out into MPO8 and MPO12 connections for higher speed links. There was no clean way to bundle multiple fibers into one single "connector". This concept of bundling should expand beyond just simplex/duplex and allow for individual strands of fiber to be patched ad-hoc at each device (I may have 8 fibers coming in from an MPO8 on a switch to a patch panel, then on the remote patch panel, break that out into 4x duplex connections). I'd love to model this in netbox, but was unable to find a way and have fallen back to spreadsheets :( with the eventual thought of standing up a separate database to track our fiber plant.

@bryanward-net commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2021): I also ran into trouble trying to document my fiber plant this way. I treat all my fiber plant as single strands, but then often use 2 strands to connect devices. This is getting worse as we now spread out into MPO8 and MPO12 connections for higher speed links. There was no clean way to bundle multiple fibers into one single "connector". This concept of bundling should expand beyond just simplex/duplex and allow for individual strands of fiber to be patched ad-hoc at each device (I may have 8 fibers coming in from an MPO8 on a switch to a patch panel, then on the remote patch panel, break that out into 4x duplex connections). I'd love to model this in netbox, but was unable to find a way and have fallen back to spreadsheets :( with the eventual thought of standing up a separate database to track our fiber plant.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2021):

I think rather then using simplex/duplex it would make more sense to add in a model to permit connecting multiple front ports to a single interface.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 16, 2021): I think rather then using simplex/duplex it would make more sense to add in a model to permit connecting multiple front ports to a single interface.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Apr 1, 2021):

Being able to connect simplex fiber would be helpful indeed.

This seems to be related to #5798

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Apr 1, 2021): Being able to connect simplex fiber would be helpful indeed. This seems to be related to #5798
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gdelanoe commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021):

I agree with you guys. At work we have the exact same issue : we have a lot of devices connected using bidirectionnal modules (only one fiber) and we can't represent these in Netbox.

Very painful problem for us.

@gdelanoe commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021): I agree with you guys. At work we have the exact same issue : we have a lot of devices connected using bidirectionnal modules (only one fiber) and we can't represent these in Netbox. Very painful problem for us.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021):

we have a lot of devices connected using bidirectionnal modules (only one fiber) and we can't represent these in Netbox.

You can absolutely model these in NetBox today. The model just isn't as exact as it would be in an ideal world.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021): > we have a lot of devices connected using bidirectionnal modules (only one fiber) and we can't represent these in Netbox. You can absolutely model these in NetBox today. The model just isn't as exact as it would be in an ideal world.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:34:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021):

Proposed Functionality

We have a mix of LC Simplex and LC Duplex cables. Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC.

I'm going to close this issue as it does not convey a specific proposed change and the discussion has not yielded anything that we can act on as developers. People are welcome to submit a new feature request citing exactly what interface/port/cable types they would like to see added, and any related changes that are necessary to support these.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2021): > ### Proposed Functionality > We have a mix of LC Simplex and LC Duplex cables. Netbox 2.9.9 only supports 'LC' as a port type, but does not distinguish between a single/simplex port LC, or a double/duplex port LC. I'm going to close this issue as it does not convey a specific proposed change and the discussion has not yielded anything that we can act on as developers. People are welcome to submit a new feature request citing _exactly_ what interface/port/cable types they would like to see added, and any related changes that are necessary to support these.
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 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#4328
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?