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

Virtual Chassis Cisco interface numbering wrong #4621

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:38:22 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:38:22 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @nikor30 on GitHub (Mar 3, 2021).

Environment

  • Python version: Python 3.8.5

  • NetBox version: (v2.10.5)

    On Cisco when you create stacks the second stack member is treated like adding a module to a modular switch.
    In Netbox I use the Virtual Chassis to replicate Cisco stacks. Issue is the interfaces are now double
    TwentyFiveGigE1/0/1 on stack memeber one and two
    grafik

Proposed Functionality

Solution is that by adding a memeber to the Virtual Chassis is for Cisco deivecs is:
stack master => TwentyFiveGigE1/0/1
1 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE2/0/1
2 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE3/0/1
.
.
.5 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE5/0/1

Use Case

Think this is mandatory to reflect as most the reality as possible

Originally created by @nikor30 on GitHub (Mar 3, 2021). ### Environment * Python version: Python 3.8.5 * NetBox version: (v2.10.5) On Cisco when you create stacks the second stack member is treated like adding a module to a modular switch. In Netbox I use the Virtual Chassis to replicate Cisco stacks. Issue is the interfaces are now double TwentyFiveGigE1/0/1 on stack memeber one and two ![grafik](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4319444/109846883-e9fe9100-7c4e-11eb-9516-3484fc196e61.png) ### Proposed Functionality Solution is that by adding a memeber to the Virtual Chassis is for Cisco deivecs is: stack master => TwentyFiveGigE1/0/1 1 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE2/0/1 2 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE3/0/1 . . .5 stack memeber => TwentyFiveGigE5/0/1 ### Use Case Think this is mandatory to reflect as most the reality as possible ###
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:38:22 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:38:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2021):

You'll need to rename the interfaces yourself, to match the on-box numbering. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of all the vendors using different types of chassis/slot interface naming.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Mar 3, 2021): You'll need to rename the interfaces yourself, to match the on-box numbering. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of all the vendors using different types of chassis/slot interface naming.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:38:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2021):

Just confirming what @tyler-8 said above. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this that we can implement blindly; best to handle it on your own to avoid unexpected behavior.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2021): Just confirming what @tyler-8 said above. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this that we can implement blindly; best to handle it on your own to avoid unexpected behavior.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:38:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2021):

This also matches the expected behaviour of a Cisco switch. If you remove switch 2 from a stack, it will be "slot 2" and not "slot 1" unless you go back and renumber the switch.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2021): This also matches the expected behaviour of a Cisco switch. If you remove switch 2 from a stack, it will be "slot 2" and not "slot 1" unless you go back and renumber the switch.
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#4621
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?