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

Addition Interface Type for ATM/xDSL Interfaces #4896

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:21:45 +01:00 by adam · 19 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:45 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @craized on GitHub (May 10, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v2.11.3

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Add support for an interface-type that covers DSL connections. Specifically, adding support for xDSL

Use case

My OOB network uses DSL from another provider to provide access to a number of console servers. These circuits have static addresses that cannot be tracked on an accurately classified interface.

For now, I'm using the 'other' interface type, but tracking these as what they actually would be preferable.

Database changes

No schema changes

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @craized on GitHub (May 10, 2021). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v2.11.3 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Add support for an interface-type that covers DSL connections. Specifically, adding support for `xDSL` ### Use case My OOB network uses DSL from another provider to provide access to a number of console servers. These circuits have static addresses that cannot be tracked on an accurately classified interface. For now, I'm using the 'other' interface type, but tracking these as what they actually would be preferable. ### Database changes No schema changes ### External dependencies None
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:21:45 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:21:45 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 14, 2021):

What is the specific new type being proposed?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 14, 2021): What is the specific new type being proposed?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@julianze commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021):

"xDSL" should be the right one i think.
Maybe an additional "ATM" for old based connections.

@julianze commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021): "xDSL" should be the right one i think. Maybe an additional "ATM" for old based connections.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (May 19, 2021):

After considering existing interface types vs connector types in NetBox, I agree that xDSL is the appropriate request. Would it be best if I updated the original post?

@craized commented on GitHub (May 19, 2021): After considering existing interface types vs connector types in NetBox, I agree that `xDSL` is the appropriate request. Would it be best if I updated the original post?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

@craized yes please, for the benefit of newcomers.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2021): @craized yes please, for the benefit of newcomers.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Should we create an ATM group for this interface type?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 21, 2021): Should we create an ATM group for this interface type?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (May 22, 2021):

I'm all for being able to set up bond groups.

+1 to ATM groups

@craized commented on GitHub (May 22, 2021): I'm all for being able to set up bond groups. +1 to ATM groups
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 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.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 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 19:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2021):

Would we need an entire group for ATM or could we simply use Other as a covering group for xDSL which itself covers a broad number of DSL/ATM connections (ADSL, VDSL, ADSL2, etc)?

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2021): Would we need an entire group for ATM or could we simply use Other as a covering group for xDSL which itself covers a broad number of DSL/ATM connections (ADSL, VDSL, ADSL2, etc)?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021):

Feel free to assign to me. I'm happy to make a PR once we have a consensus on placement.

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021): Feel free to assign to me. I'm happy to make a PR once we have a consensus on placement.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@julianze commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021):

+1 for a dedicated group (as with Cellular) for this purpose:
Group: xDSL

With types:

  • ADSL
  • ADSL2+
  • SDSL
  • VDSL
  • G.fast
  • ISDN
  • POTS
@julianze commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021): +1 for a dedicated group (as with Cellular) for this purpose: Group: xDSL With types: - ADSL - ADSL2+ - SDSL - VDSL - G.fast - ISDN - POTS
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021):

I actually really like the idea of a POTS group to cover DS0 delivered services like xDSL/dial

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021): I actually really like the idea of a POTS group to cover DS0 delivered services like xDSL/dial
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021):

I guess we need to think about grouping as ATM covers many things outside of xDSL and currently there is no sub-grouping.

DS0, DS1, DS3, etc are just muxed T's which are currently under the Serial grouping, maybe that should fall under TDM?

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021): I guess we need to think about grouping as ATM covers many things outside of xDSL and currently there is no sub-grouping. DS0, DS1, DS3, etc are just muxed T's which are currently under the Serial grouping, maybe that should fall under TDM?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021):

Thoughts on:

ATM

  • OCx - Currently in SONET
  • xDSL (RJ-11)
    • ADSL
    • ADSL2
    • ADSL2+
    • G.fast
    • SDSL
    • VDSL

TDM

  • DSx
  • ISDN
  • Tx/Ex - Currently in SERIAL
  • POTS

Edit: Moving target

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2021): Thoughts on: **ATM** - OCx - **Currently in SONET** - xDSL (RJ-11) - ADSL - ADSL2 - ADSL2+ - G.fast - SDSL - VDSL **TDM** - DSx - ISDN - Tx/Ex - **Currently in SERIAL** - POTS Edit: Moving target
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021):

That feels pretty good to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something important!

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, 2:08 PM Brian Ellwood @.***> wrote:

Thoughts on:

TDM

  • DSx
  • ISDN
  • Tx/Ex
  • OCx

xDSL

  • ADSL
  • ADSL2
  • ADSL2+
  • G.fast
  • SDSL
  • VDSL

Other

  • Other
  • POTS

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/6387#issuecomment-893808726,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD2A2TQRDB3TJTAHHG7E2TT3L4V5ANCNFSM44SG3FNQ
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675
or Android
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email
.

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021): That feels pretty good to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something important! On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, 2:08 PM Brian Ellwood ***@***.***> wrote: > Thoughts on: > > *TDM* > > - DSx > - ISDN > - Tx/Ex > - OCx > > *xDSL* > > - ADSL > - ADSL2 > - ADSL2+ > - G.fast > - SDSL > - VDSL > > *Other* > > - Other > - POTS > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/6387#issuecomment-893808726>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD2A2TQRDB3TJTAHHG7E2TT3L4V5ANCNFSM44SG3FNQ> > . > Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS > <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> > or Android > <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email> > . >
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021):

That feels pretty good to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something important!

I guess it depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go with ITU G.992.x since the xDSL versions all have sub-standards with different throughputs.

We just need to find the right home for everything =)

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021): > That feels pretty good to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something important! I guess it depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go with ITU G.992.x since the xDSL versions all have sub-standards with different throughputs. We just need to find the right home for everything =)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@julianze commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021):

Thoughts on:

ATM

  • OCx - Currently in SONET

  • xDSL (RJ-11)

    • ADSL
    • ADSL2
    • ADSL2+
    • G.fast
    • SDSL
    • VDSL

TDM

  • DSx
  • ISDN
  • Tx/Ex - Currently in SERIAL
  • POTS

Edit: Moving target

+1

@julianze commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021): > Thoughts on: > > **ATM** > > * OCx - **Currently in SONET** > * xDSL (RJ-11) > > * ADSL > * ADSL2 > * ADSL2+ > * G.fast > * SDSL > * VDSL > > **TDM** > > * DSx > * ISDN > * Tx/Ex - **Currently in SERIAL** > * POTS > > Edit: Moving target +1
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021):

So after a sleep, what's the thought process for moving OCx from SONET to ATM? I think they're both equally correct/incorrect, right?

@craized commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2021): So after a sleep, what's the thought process for moving OCx from SONET to ATM? I think they're both equally correct/incorrect, right?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2021):

This seems to have stagnated. I'm just going to add a new xDSL type as that's what the original request was for. Happy to entertain additional proposals under a new issue.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2021): This seems to have stagnated. I'm just going to add a new xDSL type as that's what the original request was for. Happy to entertain additional proposals under a *new* issue.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2021):

Thank you-- this is definitely good enough for my purposes and I appreciate the addition.

@craized commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2021): Thank you-- this is definitely good enough for my purposes and I appreciate the addition.
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#4896
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?