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

Circuit Redundancy Groups #5225

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:25:38 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:38 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tardoe on GitHub (Aug 24, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub.

NetBox version

v2.11.12

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

This proposal adds a new model for defining the relationship between circuits to track a designed redundancy between them.

A Circuit Redundancy Group (CRG) should contain two or more circuits that provide redundancy to one another. For example, two circuits exist from A to B, when added as members of a CRG, it is then easy to determine the impact of various failure scenarios. Optionally, circuits can be given a priority to indicate their primary, secondary, tertiary etc. status within the group.

Use case

A common use case is for dual circuits between two sites or devices. E.g.:

NYC1 -- DAL1 (provider A)
   |      |
NYC2 -- DAL2 (provider B)

In this case the two circuits linking DAL and NYC sites would be added to the same CRG to indicate they protect each other. One of the most useful example use-cases for this information might be evaluating maintenance notifications. If both circuits have overlapping maintenance events, the user would know to expect an outage. These types of scenarios could be determined well ahead of time given the designed redundancy is documented.

Database changes

An addition of a CRG model and any associated models required to track a many-to-many relationship between CRG and Circuit. It might also be worth considering CRG nesting (similar to how Locations models operate) where redundancy design are more complicated.

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @tardoe on GitHub (Aug 24, 2021). Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub. ### NetBox version v2.11.12 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality This proposal adds a new model for defining the relationship between circuits to track a designed redundancy between them. A Circuit Redundancy Group (CRG) should contain two or more circuits that provide redundancy to one another. For example, two circuits exist from A to B, when added as members of a CRG, it is then easy to determine the impact of various failure scenarios. Optionally, circuits can be given a priority to indicate their primary, secondary, tertiary etc. status within the group. ### Use case A common use case is for dual circuits between two sites or devices. E.g.: ``` NYC1 -- DAL1 (provider A) | | NYC2 -- DAL2 (provider B) ``` In this case the two circuits linking DAL and NYC sites would be added to the same CRG to indicate they protect each other. One of the most useful example use-cases for this information might be evaluating maintenance notifications. If both circuits have overlapping maintenance events, the user would know to expect an outage. These types of scenarios could be determined well ahead of time given the designed redundancy is documented. ### Database changes An addition of a CRG model and any associated models required to track a many-to-many relationship between CRG and Circuit. It might also be worth considering CRG nesting (similar to how Locations models operate) where redundancy design are more complicated. ### External dependencies None
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurecomplexity: medium labels 2025-12-29 19:25:38 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:25:38 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tardoe commented on GitHub (Sep 3, 2021):

Having given this some further thought, we can likely add a field titled "minimum circuits" to the CRG model to indicate the minimum number of circuits required to call the CRG "healthy". This will enable a few use cases such as:

  • CRGs with more than two parallel links where more than two are required at any one time.
  • Circuits that are related but cannot be modelled with terminations such as back-to-back connected circuits in uncontrolled spaces (e.g. a long-haul circuit and a last-mile circuit that are directly connected without a device in between) that would be considered a single logical circuit. This would have a "minimum circuits" value of 2 in this case - meaning both are required.
  • Nesting can be used to group these back-to-back CRGs (as above) with other single-circuits that provide redundancy to on-another.
@tardoe commented on GitHub (Sep 3, 2021): Having given this some further thought, we can likely add a field titled "minimum circuits" to the CRG model to indicate the minimum number of circuits required to call the CRG "healthy". This will enable a few use cases such as: - CRGs with more than two parallel links where more than two are required at any one time. - Circuits that are related but cannot be modelled with terminations such as back-to-back connected circuits in uncontrolled spaces (e.g. a long-haul circuit and a last-mile circuit that are directly connected without a device in between) that would be considered a single logical circuit. This would have a "minimum circuits" value of 2 in this case - meaning both are required. - Nesting can be used to group these back-to-back CRGs (as above) with other single-circuits that provide redundancy to on-another.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 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 (Nov 2, 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 19:25:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 9, 2022):

After revisiting this, it needs a more detailed implementation proposal. What specifically should this model look like? @tardoe can you provide some more detail?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 9, 2022): After revisiting this, it needs a more detailed implementation proposal. What specifically should this model look like? @tardoe can you provide some more detail?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tardoe commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2022):

@jeremystretch What additional details do you require that's not been specified in the original outline?

I'd expect the CRG model to be similar to the Location model, likely with an added field for "failover type" - this could either be user defined or a pre-defined list, e.g.: "active-passive", "active-active", "at-least-one" etc. etc.

@tardoe commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2022): @jeremystretch What additional details do you require that's not been specified in the original outline? I'd expect the CRG model to be similar to the Location model, likely with an added field for "failover type" - this could either be user defined or a pre-defined list, e.g.: "active-passive", "active-active", "at-least-one" etc. etc.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2022):

What fields does the proposed CRG model have? Which of those are required? What are its unique constraints and ordering logic?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2022): What fields does the proposed CRG model have? Which of those are required? What are its unique constraints and ordering logic?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 6, 2022):

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. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 6, 2022): 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. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cybarox commented on GitHub (Sep 7, 2022):

My 2ct on this:

I would like to show an example where CRG could be useful to define which impact an outage could have.

Our branches are dependent on cloud software that have to be always available.
Therefore, we are planning 3 circuits for our sites because of high availability.
We use two ISPs, due to different backbones. Our Main ISP offers an LTE/4G backup option, but this should only be used if our 2 main circuits are down.
If I would transfer our design to CR groups in NetBox, it would look something like this:

                  ________________________
                 [________site-crg________]
                 [ prio = 0               ]
                 [ type = parent          ]
                 [ mode = active-passive  ]
                 [ min_child = 1          ]
                 [ child_type = crg       ]
                 [________________________]
                   /                    \
     _____________/________      ________\_____________
    [_______main-crg_______]    [______backup-crg______]
    [ parent = site-crg    ]    [ parent = site-crg    ]
    [ prio = 1             ]    [ prio = 2             ]
    [ mode = active-active ]    [ mode = passive       ]
    [ min_child = 1        ]    [ min_child = 1        ]
    [ child_type = circuit ]    [ child_type = circuit ]
    [______________________]    [______________________]
      |  __________________       |  __________________
      |-[__circuit1-isp1___]      \-[__circuit3-isp1___]
      [ [ prio = 1         ]        [ prio = null      ]
      | [ type = VDSL      ]        [ type = LTE/4G    ]
      | [ provider = isp1  ]        [ provider = isp1  ]
      | [ crg = main-crg   ]        [ crg = backup-crg ]
      | [__________________]        [__________________]
      |  __________________
      \-[__circuit2-isp2___]
        [ prio = 2         ]
        [ type = VDSL      ]
        [ provider = isp2  ]
        [ crg = main-crg   ]
        [__________________]

I would define a higher-level CRG for the site. In our case, 2 further CRGs are subordinated to this one.
One of the groups combines our two main ciruits. There should minimum 1 circuit be working here.
The other group defines circuits which are defined as backup for the main circuits. (e.g. if the excavator hits the main cable)

We also have custom fields to identify information such as physical location of the circuit handover point, ID of the electrical box, access contacts, etc. Today we fill in these fields for each circuit. It would make more sense to assign these fields to the CRG to maintain them in one place only.

I hope this helps when considering a solution.

@cybarox commented on GitHub (Sep 7, 2022): My 2ct on this: I would like to show an example where CRG could be useful to define which impact an outage could have. Our branches are dependent on cloud software that have to be always available. Therefore, we are planning 3 circuits for our sites because of high availability. We use two ISPs, due to different backbones. Our Main ISP offers an LTE/4G backup option, but this should only be used if our 2 main circuits are down. If I would transfer our design to CR groups in NetBox, it would look something like this: ``` ________________________ [________site-crg________] [ prio = 0 ] [ type = parent ] [ mode = active-passive ] [ min_child = 1 ] [ child_type = crg ] [________________________] / \ _____________/________ ________\_____________ [_______main-crg_______] [______backup-crg______] [ parent = site-crg ] [ parent = site-crg ] [ prio = 1 ] [ prio = 2 ] [ mode = active-active ] [ mode = passive ] [ min_child = 1 ] [ min_child = 1 ] [ child_type = circuit ] [ child_type = circuit ] [______________________] [______________________] | __________________ | __________________ |-[__circuit1-isp1___] \-[__circuit3-isp1___] [ [ prio = 1 ] [ prio = null ] | [ type = VDSL ] [ type = LTE/4G ] | [ provider = isp1 ] [ provider = isp1 ] | [ crg = main-crg ] [ crg = backup-crg ] | [__________________] [__________________] | __________________ \-[__circuit2-isp2___] [ prio = 2 ] [ type = VDSL ] [ provider = isp2 ] [ crg = main-crg ] [__________________] ``` I would define a higher-level CRG for the site. In our case, 2 further CRGs are subordinated to this one. One of the groups combines our two main ciruits. There should minimum 1 circuit be working here. The other group defines circuits which are defined as backup for the main circuits. (e.g. if the excavator hits the main cable) We also have custom fields to identify information such as physical location of the circuit handover point, ID of the electrical box, access contacts, etc. Today we fill in these fields for each circuit. It would make more sense to assign these fields to the CRG to maintain them in one place only. I hope this helps when considering a solution.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023):

This could be a good candidate for 3.6

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023): This could be a good candidate for 3.6
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:25:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 11, 2023):

Adding some more thoughts on this while I make time to actually implement it:

  • The issue with @cybarox is that you need 3 instances to describe a scenario that you could really do with 1. To lower complexity I would simply create a single CRG with all three circuits. The two main ISPs would have equal weight and the LTE connection with a lower weight. Using those weights you can easily tell if a site is "degraded" based on the weights of all available circuits. You can also offline assess the impact of any set of outages.

  • Given a "site" for an enterprise can be treated very differently to a service provider or a campus (e.g. site == building??) I feel that a site-level CRG is probably unnecessary.

I'd like to have a go at implementing this in the coming weeks, time permitting. I feel from an initial, basic cut I can have a better idea of how this model might work.

@tardoe commented on GitHub (May 11, 2023): Adding some more thoughts on this while I make time to actually implement it: - The issue with @cybarox is that you need 3 instances to describe a scenario that you could really do with 1. To lower complexity I would simply create a single CRG with all three circuits. The two main ISPs would have equal weight and the LTE connection with a lower weight. Using those weights you can easily tell if a site is "degraded" based on the weights of all available circuits. You can also offline assess the impact of any set of outages. - Given a "site" for an enterprise can be treated very differently to a service provider or a campus (e.g. site == building??) I feel that a site-level CRG is probably unnecessary. I'd like to have a go at implementing this in the coming weeks, time permitting. I feel from an initial, basic cut I can have a better idea of how this model might work.
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 complexity: medium 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#5225
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?