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

Add coaxial/barrel (DC) power connectors IEC 60130-10:1971 (Ports, Outlets) #7063

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:48:29 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:29 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ypid on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.3.4

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Add support for coaxial/barrel (DC) power connectors that are widely used by IT equipment. 60130-10:1971 seems to most comprehensive standard of barrel connectors. I don’t have access to the document (costs 40 $). But from the linked wikipedia article I translated a definition ready for https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/choices.py so that we already have some code to talk about:

        ('60130-10:1971', (
            (TYPE_IEC_DC5521, 'Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC5525, 'Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC6021, 'Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC6025, 'Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC3811, 'Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC6331, 'Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_IEC_DC3413, 'Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'),
        )),

The only question remaining for me is where the DC5521 comes from. I went with this notation because I often see it on devices, manuals. It correlates with the sizes of the connector. If it is described in 60130-10:1971 that it would be ideal to use as internal identifier. I guess one should get and read 60130-10:1971 before implementing this feature.

Use case

https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/792#issuecomment-581996536

Cc: @brotherdust, @bluikko

Database changes

Yes

External dependencies

No

Originally created by @ypid on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.3.4 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Add support for coaxial/barrel (DC) power connectors that are widely used by IT equipment. [60130-10:1971](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_power_connector#IEC_60130-10) seems to most comprehensive standard of barrel connectors. I don’t have access to the document (costs 40 $). But from the linked wikipedia article I translated a definition ready for https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/choices.py so that we already have some code to talk about: ```python ('60130-10:1971', ( (TYPE_IEC_DC5521, 'Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC5525, 'Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC6021, 'Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC6025, 'Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC3811, 'Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC6331, 'Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'), (TYPE_IEC_DC3413, 'Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'), )), ``` The only question remaining for me is where the `DC5521` comes from. I went with this notation because I often see it on devices, manuals. It correlates with the sizes of the connector. If it is described in 60130-10:1971 that it would be ideal to use as internal identifier. I guess one should get and read 60130-10:1971 before implementing this feature. ### Use case https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/792#issuecomment-581996536 Cc: @brotherdust, @bluikko ### Database changes Yes ### External dependencies No
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 19:48:29 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:48:29 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2022):

Thanks for your submission, but... Isn't that too specific ? I mean, here we are covering the cases of the IEC 60130-10 standard, but then some other user may complain that the EIAJ power connector and/or DIN 45323 connectors are not represented...

Would it make sense to you to represent those simply under "DC" and add something like Coaxial power connector in there ? Or maybe even only DC power connector to represent all types (Barrel/Coaxial, Tip/Sleeve, Deans, XT60, XT90, etc.)

One must also not forget the "Port" side too.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2022): Thanks for your submission, but... Isn't that too specific ? I mean, here we are covering the cases of the IEC 60130-10 standard, but then some other user may complain that the EIAJ power connector and/or DIN 45323 connectors are not represented... Would it make sense to you to represent those simply under ["DC"](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/choices.py#L704-L705) and add something like `Coaxial power connector` in there ? Or maybe even only `DC power connector` to represent all types [(Barrel/Coaxial, Tip/Sleeve, Deans, XT60, XT90, etc.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_connector) One must also not forget the "Port" side too.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2022):

Also note that these would be connected via a cable with a type no more descriptive than "power."

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2022): Also note that these would be connected via a cable with a type no more descriptive than "power."
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ypid commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2022):

NetBox already supports other IEC standards in detail. Also various USB connectors. Coaxial power connector is also very common in IT equipment so I am not convinced that we should draw the line here.

I have not seen DIN 45323 (I live in Germany) nor EIAJ in the wild yet. Other people would need to jump in if they have a use case for this in NetBox. I only want to push for standards that I know are in use in the wild.

these would be connected via a cable with a type no more descriptive than "power."

Good point, I removed "connections" from the issue title.

@ypid commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2022): NetBox already supports other IEC standards in detail. Also various USB connectors. Coaxial power connector is also very common in IT equipment so I am not convinced that we should draw the line here. I have not seen DIN 45323 (I live in Germany) nor EIAJ in the wild yet. Other people would need to jump in if they have a use case for this in NetBox. I only want to push for standards that I know are in use in the wild. > these would be connected via a cable with a type no more descriptive than "power." Good point, I removed "connections" from the issue title.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2022):

Modelling DC makes sense as a device can clearly be powered from an upstream DC rectifier but for me, those would always be just DC. For devices with DC barrel connectors, I look at the ports feeding the transformers - in the UK typically IEC C14, perhaps C6 or Type G as that determines the type of rack PDU I'm going to need to power it. I'm not going to start modelling small wall-warts or transformer blocks so specific barrel types isn't going to be interesting to me.

That said, if you do choose to model the transformers - perhaps as a device with a C14 input and a 2.5mm barrel output, and you need to replace one, then it would make sense to be able to record the type/connector size needed and it adds a small number of lines to an existing data structure that most people will likely ignore, but adds value to some so I see no good reason not to do this - although I'd perhaps move them all under the DC section and add a generic option (in my experience, this info is rarely published on data sheets):

('DC', (
            (TYPE_DC, 'DC Terminal'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC,'Coax/Barrel'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5521, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5525, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6021, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6025, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3811, 'Coax/Barrel Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6331, 'Coax/Barrel Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3413, 'Coax/Barrel Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'),
        )),

Related and perhaps more importantly a PowerPort could have an optional input_voltage field added to record whether it takes -48V, +12V or +24V, etc?

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2022): Modelling DC makes sense as a device can clearly be powered from an upstream DC rectifier but for me, those would always be just DC. For devices with DC barrel connectors, I look at the ports feeding the transformers - in the UK typically IEC C14, perhaps C6 or Type G as that determines the type of rack PDU I'm going to need to power it. I'm not going to start modelling small wall-warts or transformer blocks so specific barrel types isn't going to be interesting to me. That said, if you do choose to model the transformers - perhaps as a device with a C14 input and a 2.5mm barrel output, and you need to replace one, then it would make sense to be able to record the type/connector size needed and it adds a small number of lines to an existing data structure that most people will likely ignore, but adds value to some so I see no good reason not to do this - although I'd perhaps move them all under the DC section and add a generic option (in my experience, this info is rarely published on data sheets): ``` ('DC', ( (TYPE_DC, 'DC Terminal'), (TYPE_DC_IEC,'Coax/Barrel'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5521, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5525, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6021, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6025, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3811, 'Coax/Barrel Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6331, 'Coax/Barrel Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'), (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3413, 'Coax/Barrel Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'), )), ``` Related and perhaps more importantly a PowerPort could have an optional input_voltage field added to record whether it takes -48V, +12V or +24V, etc?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ypid commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2022):

I would summaries my understanding of the discussion here as barrel connectors standards are not as viable on devices/manufactures. Also, there are multiple standards and I can confirm that IEC 60130-10:1971 does not cover all the devices I have in NetBox. So I withdraw this proposal and instead rethought the approach and opened #10838.

@ypid commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2022): I would summaries my understanding of the discussion here as barrel connectors standards are not as viable on devices/manufactures. Also, there are multiple standards and I can confirm that IEC 60130-10:1971 does not cover all the devices I have in NetBox. So I withdraw this proposal and instead rethought the approach and opened #10838.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ypid commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2022):

Connector types need to be defined in NetBox, that is the only way (https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions#how-can-i-add-new-interface-types). Therefore I reopen.

@ypid commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2022): Connector types need to be defined in NetBox, that is the only way (https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions#how-can-i-add-new-interface-types). Therefore I reopen.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022):

Up to you guys on implementing each individual 'type' of barrel plug, but it would be nice to at least have a generic option for barrel plug connector type.

Right now, the only available option under the 'DC' power type is 'DC Terminal', would be nice if we had at least a few more options 'Barrel Plug'

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022): Up to you guys on implementing each individual 'type' of barrel plug, but it would be nice to at least have a generic option for barrel plug connector type. Right now, the only available option under the 'DC' power type is 'DC Terminal', would be nice if we had at least a few more options 'Barrel Plug'
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jan 3, 2023):

Modelling DC makes sense as a device can clearly be powered from an upstream DC rectifier but for me, those would always be just DC. For devices with DC barrel connectors, I look at the ports feeding the transformers - in the UK typically IEC C14, perhaps C6 or Type G as that determines the type of rack PDU I'm going to need to power it. I'm not going to start modelling small wall-warts or transformer blocks so specific barrel types isn't going to be interesting to me.

That said, if you do choose to model the transformers - perhaps as a device with a C14 input and a 2.5mm barrel output, and you need to replace one, then it would make sense to be able to record the type/connector size needed and it adds a small number of lines to an existing data structure that most people will likely ignore, but adds value to some so I see no good reason not to do this - although I'd perhaps move them all under the DC section and add a generic option (in my experience, this info is rarely published on data sheets):

('DC', (
            (TYPE_DC, 'DC Terminal'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC,'Coax/Barrel'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5521, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5525, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6021, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6025, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3811, 'Coax/Barrel Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6331, 'Coax/Barrel Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'),
            (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3413, 'Coax/Barrel Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'),
        )),

Related and perhaps more importantly a PowerPort could have an optional input_voltage field added to record whether it takes -48V, +12V or +24V, etc?

I think a Generic "Barrel Plug" would suffice most needs. You can be more specific in the DeviceType description if you want ?

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jan 3, 2023): > Modelling DC makes sense as a device can clearly be powered from an upstream DC rectifier but for me, those would always be just DC. For devices with DC barrel connectors, I look at the ports feeding the transformers - in the UK typically IEC C14, perhaps C6 or Type G as that determines the type of rack PDU I'm going to need to power it. I'm not going to start modelling small wall-warts or transformer blocks so specific barrel types isn't going to be interesting to me. > > That said, if you do choose to model the transformers - perhaps as a device with a C14 input and a 2.5mm barrel output, and you need to replace one, then it would make sense to be able to record the type/connector size needed and it adds a small number of lines to an existing data structure that most people will likely ignore, but adds value to some so I see no good reason not to do this - although I'd perhaps move them all under the DC section and add a generic option (in my experience, this info is rarely published on data sheets): > > ``` > ('DC', ( > (TYPE_DC, 'DC Terminal'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC,'Coax/Barrel'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5521, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC5525, 'Coax/Barrel Type A (5.5 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6021, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.1 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6025, 'Coax/Barrel Type B (6.0 mm OD, 2.5 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3811, 'Coax/Barrel Type C (3.8 mm OD, 1.1 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC6331, 'Coax/Barrel Type D (6.3 mm OD, 3.1 mm)'), > (TYPE_DC_IEC_DC3413, 'Coax/Barrel Type E (3.4 mm OD, 1.3 mm)'), > )), > ``` > > Related and perhaps more importantly a PowerPort could have an optional input_voltage field added to record whether it takes -48V, +12V or +24V, etc? I think a Generic "Barrel Plug" would suffice most needs. You can be more specific in the DeviceType description if you want ?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2023):

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 (Apr 4, 2023): 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 19:48:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023):

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 (May 5, 2023): 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#7063
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?