starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add Parallel Redundancy Protocol(PRP) interface type #6223

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:38:12 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:38:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @uvinva on GitHub (Mar 18, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.1.9

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Add interface type PRP. It is necessary to separate it into a separate type, since the principle of operation of the protocol is different from LAG

Use case

The functionality is similar to the LAG interface type.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @uvinva on GitHub (Mar 18, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.1.9 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Add interface type PRP. It is necessary to separate it into a separate type, since the principle of operation of the protocol is different from LAG ### Use case The functionality is similar to the LAG interface type. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 19:38:12 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:38:13 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:38:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 18, 2022):

So, having never used PRP, I took a look at the wiki.

I don't see any reason why we can't add this. It does look like switches (Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) for IE 4000, IE 4010, and IE 5000 Switches) from Cisco with PTP might support it and I feel like Cisco/Juniper/Arista support is a good benchmark for that.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Mar 18, 2022): So, having never used PRP, I took a look at the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Redundancy_Protocol). I don't see any reason why we can't add this. It does look like switches ([Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP) for IE 4000, IE 4010, and IE 5000 Switches](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/industrial/software/configuration/guide/b_prp_ie4k_5k.html)) from Cisco with PTP might support it and I feel like Cisco/Juniper/Arista support is a good benchmark for that.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:38:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

We need to give some thought to the impact (if any) this would have on LAG membership modeling. PRP interfaces presumably allow the assignment of multiple physical member interfaces, correct? The current interface model tracks these via its lag ForeignKey field. While it's technically feasible to reuse this field, for PRP interfaces, it may be confusing.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2022): We need to give some thought to the impact (if any) this would have on LAG membership modeling. PRP interfaces presumably allow the assignment of multiple physical member interfaces, correct? The current interface model tracks these via its `lag` ForeignKey field. While it's technically feasible to reuse this field, for PRP interfaces, it may be confusing.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:38:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@uvinva commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2022):

We need to give some thought to the impact (if any) this would have on LAG membership modeling. PRP interfaces presumably allow the assignment of multiple physical member interfaces, correct? The current interface model tracks these via its lag ForeignKey field. While it's technically feasible to reuse this field, for PRP interfaces, it may be confusing.

Yes you are right.

@uvinva commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2022): > We need to give some thought to the impact (if any) this would have on LAG membership modeling. PRP interfaces presumably allow the assignment of multiple physical member interfaces, correct? The current interface model tracks these via its `lag` ForeignKey field. While it's technically feasible to reuse this field, for PRP interfaces, it may be confusing. Yes you are right.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:38:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 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 (Jun 10, 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 19:38:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 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 (Jul 10, 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 status: under review 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#6223
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?