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

Duplex interface to double simplex front port #5106

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:24:16 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:16 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @chesronw on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021).

NetBox version

2.11.9

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Hi,

We would like to see if there is an option where you can have one fiber patch panel that you can use for simplex and for duplex fiber.

In this case, we are able to connect the interface with a simplex SFP module (Bidirectional SFP) to a "duplex" patch panel on a specific fiber X instead of a fiber pair.

Duplex vs Simplex
image

I can imagine that this request is not fully clear.
Please let me know if you don't fully understand.

Or maybe it is already possible :)

Use case

Let's say we have a normal switch at side A that we connect with a duplex SFP LC via a fiber patch panel
(This fiber panel is 24 duplex-LC so we have 48 single fibers (simplex) ) to the side Z where we have also a switch.

Still not a problem. until we like to connect a device with a simplex SFP module.
In this case, we can currently only connect this simplex to a duplex front panel.

So instead of define 1 front port, we need to define 2 ports in case of a duplex interface to that patch panel.
When we are using a simplex interface we got only the option to connect with 1 front port X.

I was also thinking on the interface side.
Maybe we need to define the kind of interface. So you can choose between simplex or duplex interface where we later can define when we connect an interface to a front port to define 2 front ports (X1 and X2 for example) and in case of the simplex where you only need to define one front port (X3 for example)

image

image

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @chesronw on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021). ### NetBox version 2.11.9 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Hi, We would like to see if there is an option where you can have one fiber patch panel that you can use for simplex and for duplex fiber. In this case, we are able to connect the interface with a simplex SFP module (Bidirectional SFP) to a "duplex" patch panel on a specific fiber X instead of a fiber pair. **Duplex vs Simplex** ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/85490348/127165814-16c7c2c1-10e2-47c5-a11c-06086ae94f98.png) I can imagine that this request is not fully clear. Please let me know if you don't fully understand. Or maybe it is already possible :) ### Use case Let's say we have a normal switch at side A that we connect with a duplex SFP LC via a fiber patch panel _(This fiber panel is 24 duplex-LC so we have 48 single fibers (simplex) )_ to the side Z where we have also a switch. Still not a problem. until we like to connect a device with a simplex SFP module. In this case, we can currently only connect this simplex to a duplex front panel. So instead of define 1 front port, we need to define 2 ports in case of a duplex interface to that patch panel. When we are using a simplex interface we got only the option to connect with 1 front port X. I was also thinking on the interface side. Maybe we need to define the kind of interface. So you can choose between simplex or duplex interface where we later can define when we connect an interface to a front port to define 2 front ports (X1 and X2 for example) and in case of the simplex where you only need to define one front port (X3 for example) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/85490348/127165088-3d3457c6-cfe5-4ae0-b0b0-94b285dddfa4.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/85490348/127164853-95820ae6-a4d8-412c-a303-ac83e81c199e.png) ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 19:24:16 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:24:16 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021):

I would like to do this at some point, I have a working workaround in my local production instance.

I think the best way to allow this would be to allow a device with a 2 position rear-port connect to a interface (constraints would be it must be a 2 position rear-port).

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021): I would like to do this at some point, I have a working workaround in my local production instance. I think the best way to allow this would be to allow a device with a 2 position rear-port connect to a interface (constraints would be it must be a 2 position rear-port).
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@chesronw commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021):

Hi Daniel,

indeed that is a constraint.
In this case, you also going to miss the IP Interface to define the IP address / Management address of a device.

Do you also agree that when we add an extra value to the interface template or where you can choose another type of interface to a simplex or duplex. After this is done we can pick this value to determine if we need one or two front ports to select when we connect an interface to a front port.

@chesronw commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021): Hi Daniel, indeed that is a constraint. In this case, you also going to miss the IP Interface to define the IP address / Management address of a device. Do you also agree that when we add an extra value to the interface template or where you can choose another type of interface to a simplex or duplex. After this is done we can pick this value to determine if we need one or two front ports to select when we connect an interface to a front port.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021):

If we decide to take this up, design decisions will be at a later date as far as how to link it to netbox.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021): If we decide to take this up, design decisions will be at a later date as far as how to link it to netbox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@chesronw commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021):

Alright, I will wait.
The last thing a want to say is that in the future you see more and more Bi-Directional SFPs.
This request will also help to work with normal SFP and the BIDI SFPs that are connected to shared patch panels

image

@chesronw commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2021): Alright, I will wait. The last thing a want to say is that in the future you see more and more Bi-Directional SFPs. This request will also help to work with normal SFP and the BIDI SFPs that are connected to shared patch panels ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/85490348/127173577-97d21e71-bf13-4f80-b0ba-dc22da2c33be.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nick-bogle commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2021):

This is a feature that would be highly desirable for all of the implementations I have ever used Netbox in (ISPs, datacenters, etc). I hope we can get this feature implemented.

@nick-bogle commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2021): This is a feature that would be highly desirable for all of the implementations I have ever used Netbox in (ISPs, datacenters, etc). I hope we can get this feature implemented.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 7, 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 (Oct 7, 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 19:24:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2021):

This would be really cool. I was thinking about this too recently and was wondering how you feel about introducing multi-core cables / ports? The idea would be to be able to model front/rear ports as "this port has two connectors/lanes" and connect it with a two-core cable to an interface (with two lanes). If we think this further we would be able to model breakout cables in the same way as one end could be a MTO/MTP connector and 4x two lanes/cores could be connected to four interfaces. A single core cable could be used to connect lane 1 of a front port to a bidi SFP.

Is this something you are open to talk about? Is so I would be willing to invest time and think about a model for this.

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2021): This would be really cool. I was thinking about this too recently and was wondering how you feel about introducing multi-core cables / ports? The idea would be to be able to model front/rear ports as "this port has two connectors/lanes" and connect it with a two-core cable to an interface (with two lanes). If we think this further we would be able to model breakout cables in the same way as one end could be a MTO/MTP connector and 4x two lanes/cores could be connected to four interfaces. A single core cable could be used to connect lane 1 of a front port to a bidi SFP. Is this something you are open to talk about? Is so I would be willing to invest time and think about a model for this.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jalmargyyk commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2021):

Is there a workaround for this? I'm really struggling to come up with a proper workaround, since we are extensively using MPO/MTP cassettes, LX and BX optics. I have currently modelled cassettes with two rear ports and each rear port having 12 positions. Then mapping front ports (one port as one fibre in MPO/MTP cable) to rear port and position.

e.g. Front port 1 corresponds to rear port 1, position, front port 13 corresponds to rear port 2, position 1 and so on.

There's currently no way of mapping two of those fibres to one device interface. It would be really helpful to get support for interface to terminate one or two fibres to it.

@jalmargyyk commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2021): Is there a workaround for this? I'm really struggling to come up with a proper workaround, since we are extensively using MPO/MTP cassettes, LX and BX optics. I have currently modelled cassettes with two rear ports and each rear port having 12 positions. Then mapping front ports (one port as one fibre in MPO/MTP cable) to rear port and position. e.g. Front port 1 corresponds to rear port 1, position, front port 13 corresponds to rear port 2, position 1 and so on. There's currently no way of mapping two of those fibres to one device interface. It would be really helpful to get support for interface to terminate one or two fibres to it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:24:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2022):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2022): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure 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#5106
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?