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

Requesting option to specify cable termination type when creating a cable #4480

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:36:28 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:28 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lastwednesday on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.8.3
  • NetBox version: 2.10.3

Proposed Functionality

I would like to specify an optional cable termination type when running cables, eg as LC vs MPO. This would allow our data center team to more granularly track/lay cabling for different infrastructure.

This could be added as an optional dropdown during the cable creation screen.

Use Case

For example the LC termination types are used for most of our Fibre Channel cabling runs eg from a Fibre Channel Director to a racked host or storage array, and the MPO ones are for things like Inter-Chassis Links and connections between patch panels.

I discussed this more in depth with our data center team this afternoon and since the cable tracing does show what is the interface type on each segment of the cable trace that does help them a lot, so this would be more a nice to have for additional detail feature vs something that would impede our operations.

Database Changes

This may require a database change due to an additional field for the cable model.

External Dependencies

No external dependencies.

Originally created by @lastwednesday on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021). <!-- 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 I would like to specify an optional cable termination type when running cables, eg as LC vs MPO. This would allow our data center team to more granularly track/lay cabling for different infrastructure. This could be added as an optional dropdown during the cable creation screen. <!-- 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 For example the LC termination types are used for most of our Fibre Channel cabling runs eg from a Fibre Channel Director to a racked host or storage array, and the MPO ones are for things like Inter-Chassis Links and connections between patch panels. I discussed this more in depth with our data center team this afternoon and since the cable tracing does show what is the interface type on each segment of the cable trace that does help them a lot, so this would be more a nice to have for additional detail feature vs something that would impede our operations. <!-- 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 This may require a database change due to an additional field for the cable model. <!-- 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 No external dependencies.
adam added the status: revisions needed label 2025-12-29 18:36:28 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:36:28 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

The type of the cable would not change since the fibre is still Multinode OM4. The type of connector would only say something about the termination on side A and side B. Next to LC and MPO you would need a whole lot of other connectors (not even talking about the regular polished and angular polished variants):
*SC
*ST
*FC
*MTRJ
*MU
*etc..

How are break-out cables currently handled in Netbox? For example going from a QSFP 40G port to 4x a SFP+ 10G port which is often done with MPO to 4x LC duplex?

@KobesM commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021): The type of the cable would not change since the fibre is still Multinode OM4. The type of connector would only say something about the termination on side A and side B. Next to LC and MPO you would need a whole lot of other connectors (not even talking about the regular polished and angular polished variants): *SC *ST *FC *MTRJ *MU *etc.. How are break-out cables currently handled in Netbox? For example going from a QSFP 40G port to 4x a SFP+ 10G port which is often done with MPO to 4x LC duplex?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

As @KobesM mentioned, LC is a fiber termination type, not a cable type. Please update your FR accordingly.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021): As @KobesM mentioned, LC is a fiber termination type, not a cable type. Please update your FR accordingly.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Thank you. I discussed this more with our data center team and have updated the case above. Currently we are not using NetBox in production, but are testing a proof of concept in our lab to see if it would be suitable for shifting out of another DCIM tool in the near future.
I am definitely open to suggestions on best practices for handling breakout cables in NetBox as that is one of the questions our data center folks had when I was providing an example flow.

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021): Thank you. I discussed this more with our data center team and have updated the case above. Currently we are not using NetBox in production, but are testing a proof of concept in our lab to see if it would be suitable for shifting out of another DCIM tool in the near future. I am definitely open to suggestions on best practices for handling breakout cables in NetBox as that is one of the questions our data center folks had when I was providing an example flow.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021):

Check out this wiki article for the recommended approach to modeling breakout cables.

I'm afraid your feature request is not actionable in its current state: NetBox has an MPO port type, but it does not model specific cable terminations at all. Such an extension to the data model would require a highly detailed description of the proposed changes.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021): Check out [this wiki article](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Data-Model-Limitations#breakout-cables) for the recommended approach to modeling breakout cables. I'm afraid your feature request is not actionable in its current state: NetBox has an MPO port type, but it does not model specific cable terminations at all. Such an extension to the data model would require a highly detailed description of the proposed changes.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021):

No problem. Thank you for the guidance and consideration.

@lastwednesday commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021): No problem. Thank you for the guidance and consideration.
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: revisions needed
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#4480
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?