starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

New Rack types - Vertical wall-mount (open frame and enclosed cabinet) #7053

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:48:22 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:22 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ZPrimed on GitHub (Sep 30, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v3.3.4

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

There are several types of racks defined in the Rack data model, but there is no representation for a Vertical rack.

Here's a 6U example from a well-known vendor (TrippLite).
This is an example of an enclosed/cabinet-style from Navepoint.

These may not be common in a true "datacenter," but in Real World IT, they definitely exist and are in use.

An interesting side-effect of the two-post / open frame form of these is that they are effectively "infinite" depth, or at least the depth of the rack is only limited by the height it is situated from the ground, or other devices mounted to the same wallboard within that volume.

I'm not sure if this warrants any further discussion or extension of the model to properly document that quirk?
Obviously one could simply measure from floor to rail face to document the true maximum depth... this works great, until an overworked telco installer mounts something to the wallboard "inside" the rack space. 😆

Use case

Additional rack types would help to properly document the real world 😉
For now, I am using "Wall-mounted frame" with additional details in the Notes, but the correct Type would be helpful!

Database changes

Uncertain of necessary DB changes but suspect only minor, unless it is deemed necessary to try to describe "infinite" depth.

External dependencies

(no external deps)

Originally created by @ZPrimed on GitHub (Sep 30, 2022). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v3.3.4 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality There are several types of racks defined in the Rack data model, but there is no representation for a Vertical rack. [Here's a 6U example from a well-known vendor (TrippLite)](https://www.tripplite.com/smartrack-6u-vertical-wall-mount-rack-bracket~SRWALLBRKT6U). [This is an example of an enclosed/cabinet-style from Navepoint.](https://navepoint.com/navepoint-4u-vertical-wall-mountable-server-rack/) These may not be common in a true "datacenter," but in Real World IT, they definitely exist and are in use. An interesting side-effect of the two-post / open frame form of these is that they are effectively "infinite" depth, or at least the depth of the rack is only limited by the height it is situated from the ground, or other devices mounted to the same wallboard within that volume. I'm not sure if this warrants any further discussion or extension of the model to properly document that quirk? Obviously one could simply measure from floor to rail face to document the true maximum depth... this works great, until an overworked telco installer mounts something to the wallboard "inside" the rack space. 😆 ### Use case Additional rack types would help to properly document the real world 😉 For now, I am using "Wall-mounted frame" with additional details in the Notes, but the correct Type would be helpful! ### Database changes Uncertain of necessary DB changes but suspect only minor, unless it is deemed necessary to try to describe "infinite" depth. ### External dependencies (no external deps)
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:48:22 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:48:22 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022):

Seems like the proposal is to add two new rack types:

  • Wall-mounted frame (vertical)
  • Wall-mounted cabinet (vertical)

If that's accurate I think it makes sense to do so.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022): Seems like the proposal is to add two new rack types: * Wall-mounted frame (vertical) * Wall-mounted cabinet (vertical) If that's accurate I think it makes sense to do so.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ZPrimed commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022):

Yep, those two types would resolve my primary request here.

I just wasn't sure if there is any concern around the potentially indeterminate / variable "depth" of a "Wall-mounted frame (vertical)". But depth can always be left empty, too. 😉

@ZPrimed commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022): Yep, those two types would resolve my primary request here. I just wasn't sure if there is any concern around the potentially indeterminate / variable "depth" of a "Wall-mounted frame (vertical)". But depth can always be left empty, too. 😉
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@postilion commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2022):

I concur that this is a real need. We have a couple of 2U vertical Tripp-Lite cabinets, which I have replicated using a wall-mounted cabinet, 3U high (it's a 2U cabinet, with a 1U patch bay), but the orientation is goofy.
-nic
QPmhSgpZ

@postilion commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2022): I concur that this is a real need. We have a couple of 2U vertical Tripp-Lite cabinets, which I have replicated using a wall-mounted cabinet, 3U high (it's a 2U cabinet, with a 1U patch bay), but the orientation is goofy. -nic ![QPmhSgpZ](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4181980/201143651-1c118a62-a8c7-42c8-a4ab-ef088c5b500b.svg)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ZPrimed commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2022):

I have replicated using a wall-mounted cabinet, 3U high (it's a 2U cabinet, with a 1U patch bay), but the orientation is goofy.

@postilion - I would not expect anything to be "oriented" differently with the new types? The "front" of the rack is still going to be the front, even if it's facing upwards instead of forward... This is more about making sure NetBox accurately describes the world for me, I'm not looking for anything to be displayed some other way in the GUI.

@ZPrimed commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2022): > I have replicated using a wall-mounted cabinet, 3U high (it's a 2U cabinet, with a 1U patch bay), but the orientation is goofy. @postilion - I would not expect anything to be "oriented" differently with the new types? The "front" of the rack is still going to be the front, even if it's facing upwards instead of forward... This is more about making sure NetBox accurately describes the world for me, I'm not looking for anything to be displayed some other way in the GUI.
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#7053
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?