starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add a Model for creating WLAN PtMP Infrastructure #6615

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 19:43:08 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:08 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jmmk11 on GitHub (Jul 1, 2022).

NetBox version

v.3.2.4

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

There is already a methode for establishing wireless links, but as far as I know still no method for a Point to Multipoint Connection. Envoirements such as WLAN Mesh cannot be shown with the current possibilities.

There was a issue to that before: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/3979

But that issue was closed because wireless links were implemented. But as I already told that is no Solution for mUlitpoint Connections.

For Example my Envoirment has multiple Antenna which get there Signal by meshing from one Access Point Antenna.
But I can only attach one 5 Ghz Interface with one other Interface (Point to Point) but what I would like to do is connect more than one Interface to the Access Point Interface.

I hope my request is clear and you may consider looking into that or maybe there already is a solution to PtMP which I simple am not able to find

Use case

This functionality would benefit user who would like to display Envoirments such as WLAN Mesh or diretional Point to Multipoint Radio Connections.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @jmmk11 on GitHub (Jul 1, 2022). ### NetBox version v.3.2.4 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality There is already a methode for establishing wireless links, but as far as I know still no method for a Point to Multipoint Connection. Envoirements such as WLAN Mesh cannot be shown with the current possibilities. There was a issue to that before: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/3979 But that issue was closed because wireless links were implemented. But as I already told that is no Solution for mUlitpoint Connections. For Example my Envoirment has multiple Antenna which get there Signal by meshing from one Access Point Antenna. But I can only attach one 5 Ghz Interface with one other Interface (Point to Point) but what I would like to do is connect more than one Interface to the Access Point Interface. I hope my request is clear and you may consider looking into that or maybe there already is a solution to PtMP which I simple am not able to find ### Use case This functionality would benefit user who would like to display Envoirments such as WLAN Mesh or diretional Point to Multipoint Radio Connections. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurenetboxneeds milestonestatus: backlogcomplexity: high labels 2025-12-29 19:43:08 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@morten-starvik commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2022):

I totally support this feature request. I have been looking for a way to document PtMP links, but find it difficult. The only viable way is to create multiple wireless interfaces, one for each link, but this does not give a correct representation. I had hopes for the child interface function, but this only allows virtual interface, which cannot be linked to other interfaces. Maybe a possible way is to allow wireless interfaces as child interfaces, if the data model allows it?

@morten-starvik commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2022): I totally support this feature request. I have been looking for a way to document PtMP links, but find it difficult. The only viable way is to create multiple wireless interfaces, one for each link, but this does not give a correct representation. I had hopes for the child interface function, but this only allows virtual interface, which cannot be linked to other interfaces. Maybe a possible way is to allow wireless interfaces as child interfaces, if the data model allows it?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joni1993 commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2022):

Maybe a possible way is to allow wireless interfaces as child interfaces, if the data model allows it?

That would be great - many vendors model multiple SSIDs one same interface as "child"/virtual sub-interfaces of the physical wireless interface.
Currently you can either:

  • set Wireless Sub-Interface of type "Virtual" => No Wireless (SSID, etc) options but "Parent Interface" can be set
  • set Wireless "Sub-Interface" of any wireless type => Wireless options present, but you can't set a "Parent Interface"
@joni1993 commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2022): > Maybe a possible way is to allow wireless interfaces as child interfaces, if the data model allows it? That would be great - many vendors model multiple SSIDs one same interface as "child"/virtual sub-interfaces of the physical wireless interface. Currently you can either: - set Wireless Sub-Interface of type "Virtual" => No Wireless (SSID, etc) options but "Parent Interface" can be set - set Wireless "Sub-Interface" of any wireless type => Wireless options present, but you can't set a "Parent Interface"
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 16, 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 (Nov 16, 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 19:43:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jonkerj commented on GitHub (Feb 16, 2023):

That would be great - many vendors model multiple SSIDs one same interface as "child"/virtual sub-interfaces of the physical wireless interface. Currently you can either:

  • set Wireless Sub-Interface of type "Virtual" => No Wireless (SSID, etc) options but "Parent Interface" can be set
  • set Wireless "Sub-Interface" of any wireless type => Wireless options present, but you can't set a "Parent Interface"

I'm running into similar issues. I'm modelling my infrastructure into netbox, where accesspoints typically have a single 'radio' interface (with a MAC, frequency, etc) and several child interfaces for every SSID (with an ESSID, .1q settings, etc.). Using parent/child modelling, I have to choose between these options.

@jonkerj commented on GitHub (Feb 16, 2023): > That would be great - many vendors model multiple SSIDs one same interface as "child"/virtual sub-interfaces of the physical wireless interface. Currently you can either: > > * set Wireless Sub-Interface of type "Virtual" => No Wireless (SSID, etc) options but "Parent Interface" can be set > * set Wireless "Sub-Interface" of any wireless type => Wireless options present, but you can't set a "Parent Interface" I'm running into similar issues. I'm modelling my infrastructure into netbox, where accesspoints typically have a single 'radio' interface (with a MAC, frequency, etc) and several child interfaces for every SSID (with an ESSID, .1q settings, etc.). Using parent/child modelling, I have to choose between these options.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@njohnsn commented on GitHub (Mar 31, 2023):

I'm Interested in this feature as well. We have several PtMP mesh networks on campus and would like to be able to document them in netbox. I'd be happy to work with others to come up with a data model.

@njohnsn commented on GitHub (Mar 31, 2023): I'm Interested in this feature as well. We have several PtMP mesh networks on campus and would like to be able to document them in netbox. I'd be happy to work with others to come up with a data model.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@adparis99 commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2023):

I support this idea as well and hope it comes to fruition. We have a complex video camera network with many point-to-multipoint connections that I hope to be able to accurately model in NetBox at some point.

@adparis99 commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2023): I support this idea as well and hope it comes to fruition. We have a complex video camera network with many point-to-multipoint connections that I hope to be able to accurately model in NetBox at some point.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2023):

Fully agree, this would be neat to have.

I think there are (at least) two options to model this:

a) Add a boolean switch to the Wireless link to allow more than 2 end points. This would obviously not be nice for backward compatibility and introduces some foreseeable tech debt, so I don't think this isn't "the way".

b) Add a Wireless PTMP Link model which is basically the same as the Wireless Link but allows more than 2 stations to be connected and allows to distinguish the two flavors of Wireless links. Maybe it would be worth renaming the existing Wireless Links to Wireless PTP Links to be explicit about what they represent.

I'd be open to take a stab at this is there were to be consensus that this is a good way forward :-)

@BarbarossaTM commented on GitHub (Apr 22, 2023): Fully agree, this would be neat to have. I think there are (at least) two options to model this: a) Add a boolean switch to the Wireless link to allow more than 2 end points. This would obviously not be nice for backward compatibility and introduces some foreseeable tech debt, so I don't think this isn't "the way". b) Add a `Wireless PTMP Link` model which is basically the same as the Wireless Link but allows more than 2 stations to be connected and allows to distinguish the two flavors of Wireless links. _Maybe_ it would be worth renaming the existing `Wireless Links` to `Wireless PTP Links` to be explicit about what they represent. I'd be open to take a stab at this is there were to be consensus that this is a good way forward :-)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dBitech commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2024):

Has there been any movement on this feature, I would find it very useful

@dBitech commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2024): Has there been any movement on this feature, I would find it very useful
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@seanjfw commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2025):

WE NEED PtMP CONNECTIONS. My company has atleast 5 and this is a critical component in setting up our netbox environment. Has anyone discovered any workarounds (other than adding a secondary wireless connection per access point.)

@seanjfw commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2025): WE NEED PtMP CONNECTIONS. My company has atleast 5 and this is a critical component in setting up our netbox environment. Has anyone discovered any workarounds (other than adding a secondary wireless connection per access point.)
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: high needs milestone netbox status: backlog 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#6615
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?