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

Request to add QSFP+ (64GFC) interface type option #4465

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:36:17 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:17 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lastwednesday on GitHub (Jan 15, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @lastwednesday on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.8.3
  • NetBox version: 2.10.3

Proposed Functionality

Request is to add the "QSFP+ (64GFC)" interface type as an option.

Use Case

These interface types are used for Inter-Chassis Link connections for the Brocade DCX SAN directors.
These are 4x16G FC bundled adapters, like the QSFP28 (128GFC) are for 4x32G FC ones which are available in the application.
Here is an example of the part number and description:
57-0000090-01 | QSFP+ SWL 4x16G FC (64G)

Database Changes

I don't believe this should require database changes.

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @lastwednesday on GitHub (Jan 15, 2021). Originally assigned to: @lastwednesday 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 start a discussion instead: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions 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: 3.8.3 * NetBox version: 2.10.3 <!-- Describe in detail the new functionality you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, or the user interface. --> ### Proposed Functionality Request is to add the "QSFP+ (64GFC)" interface type as an option. <!-- 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 These interface types are used for Inter-Chassis Link connections for the Brocade DCX SAN directors. These are 4x16G FC bundled adapters, like the QSFP28 (128GFC) are for 4x32G FC ones which are available in the application. Here is an example of the part number and description: 57-0000090-01 | QSFP+ SWL 4x16G FC (64G) <!-- 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 I don't believe this should require 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 None
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:36:17 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:36:17 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Would you be willing to create a PR for this?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 16, 2021): Would you be willing to create a PR for this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 19, 2021):

Would you be willing to create a PR for this?

I'd be happy to. In discussion with my data center folks, they'd also like to add cabling options to distinguish OM3/OM4 LC vs MPO if that would be appropriate, as currently there's just a cable type option for OM3 and OM4 themselves. The "LC" cables are used for most of our Fibre Channel cabling, and the "MPO" ones are for the Inter-Chassis Links.

Proposal would be to add in also:
OM3 LC
OM3 MPO
OM4 LC
OM4 MPO

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 19, 2021): > Would you be willing to create a PR for this? I'd be happy to. In discussion with my data center folks, they'd also like to add cabling options to distinguish OM3/OM4 LC vs MPO if that would be appropriate, as currently there's just a cable type option for OM3 and OM4 themselves. The "LC" cables are used for most of our Fibre Channel cabling, and the "MPO" ones are for the Inter-Chassis Links. Proposal would be to add in also: OM3 LC OM3 MPO OM4 LC OM4 MPO
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021):

@lastwednesday cable endpoints are not yet tracked by netbox. I think we should separate that into another feature request to discuss implications.

Its not that big of a controversy, but would require keeping the generic types as to not impact people who currently use those cable types. We should just split it out and discuss.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021): @lastwednesday cable endpoints are not yet tracked by netbox. I think we should separate that into another feature request to discuss implications. Its not that big of a controversy, but would require keeping the generic types as to not impact people who currently use those cable types. We should just split it out and discuss.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021):

@DanSheps You can add me as an owner to this feature request. I have a fork which can include this new interface type.

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021): @DanSheps You can add me as an owner to this feature request. I have a fork which can include this new interface type.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021):

Done, thanks for volunteering!

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021): Done, thanks for volunteering!
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#4465
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?