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

Better modelling of datacentre crossconnects #7225

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:20:39 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:39 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @b66renr on GitHub (Nov 14, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.3.7

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Hello! This is written with the view of a service provider with network devices in third party datacentres, but I think applies to own datacentres reasonably well too. Forgive me if I've missed a simple way to address this!

Use case: Crossconnects purchased from a datacenter provider, e.g Equinix, between two racks. Generally presented on a patch panel, but sometimes on a hanging fibre lead in the rack (ahem, Telehouse).

I've started modelling these crossconnects as Circuits, so that they have a provider, a reference, can have contacts assigned to the provider, and because the routing of the cable and segments within it are somewhat unknown/uninteresting from this level of modelling. Downsides of using cables being the opposite of this, so no supplier/reference/etc.

However the downsides of using Circuits is that I'm having to run additional cables in Netbox, so the topology should look like:

Router Front Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Rear Port - Crossconnect - Rear Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Front Port Router.
2 cables, one at each end from the patch panels to the router, with the crossconnect directly between the rear ports of the patch panels in each rack.

However it ends up looking like:
Router Front Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Rear Port Circuit termination A - crossconnect "circuit" - Circuit termination B Rear Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Front Port Router.

Which means creating 4 cables, one at each end from the patch panels to the router, and an additional 2 from the rear port of the patch panel, to the "Circuit Termination".

It would be great to have, for example an additional section under the "Circuits" dropdown for Crossconnects, where the circuit would function more like a cable, allowing it to be directly plugged to ports. Being able to plug it directly into both patch panel rear ports, and interfaces, would account for both datacenters that present on patch panels, and those that leave a hanging cable in the rack.

Ideally, these crossconnects would also be able to span sites like circuits do, due to you often being able to purchase a crossconnect between different sites in the same datacentre campus/metro area.

Thanks!

Use case

Currently (unless I'm missing a better way of doing this), datacentre crossconnects seem to fit into an awkward gap between cables and circuits. Hoping to address that with the above information.

Database changes

New model, much alike a circuit?

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @b66renr on GitHub (Nov 14, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.3.7 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Hello! This is written with the view of a service provider with network devices in third party datacentres, but I think applies to own datacentres reasonably well too. Forgive me if I've missed a simple way to address this! Use case: Crossconnects purchased from a datacenter provider, e.g Equinix, between two racks. Generally presented on a patch panel, but sometimes on a hanging fibre lead in the rack (ahem, Telehouse). I've started modelling these crossconnects as Circuits, so that they have a provider, a reference, can have contacts assigned to the provider, and because the routing of the cable and segments within it are somewhat unknown/uninteresting from this level of modelling. Downsides of using cables being the opposite of this, so no supplier/reference/etc. However the downsides of using Circuits is that I'm having to run additional cables in Netbox, so the topology should look like: Router <cable> Front Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Rear Port - Crossconnect - Rear Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Front Port <cable> Router. 2 cables, one at each end from the patch panels to the router, with the crossconnect directly between the rear ports of the patch panels in each rack. However it ends up looking like: Router <cable> Front Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Rear Port <cable> Circuit termination A - crossconnect "circuit" - Circuit termination B <cable> Rear Port - Datacentre Patch Panel - Front Port <cable> Router. Which means creating 4 cables, one at each end from the patch panels to the router, and an additional 2 from the rear port of the patch panel, to the "Circuit Termination". It would be great to have, for example an additional section under the "Circuits" dropdown for Crossconnects, where the circuit would function more like a cable, allowing it to be directly plugged to ports. Being able to plug it directly into both patch panel rear ports, and interfaces, would account for both datacenters that present on patch panels, and those that leave a hanging cable in the rack. Ideally, these crossconnects would also be able to span sites like circuits do, due to you often being able to purchase a crossconnect between different sites in the same datacentre campus/metro area. Thanks! ### Use case Currently (unless I'm missing a better way of doing this), datacentre crossconnects seem to fit into an awkward gap between cables and circuits. Hoping to address that with the above information. ### Database changes New model, much alike a circuit? ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:20:39 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:20:39 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2023):

It would be great to have, for example an additional section under the "Circuits" dropdown for Crossconnects, where the circuit would function more like a cable, allowing it to be directly plugged to ports. Being able to plug it directly into both patch panel rear ports, and interfaces, would account for both datacenters that present on patch panels, and those that leave a hanging cable in the rack.

This option already exists: You can terminate a circuit directly to the device interface, bypassing the patch panel entirely (but perhaps annotating it in the circuit's comments). Which approach is best is left to the determination of the user. But ultimately the line of demarcation must be drawn somewhere.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2023): > It would be great to have, for example an additional section under the "Circuits" dropdown for Crossconnects, where the circuit would function more like a cable, allowing it to be directly plugged to ports. Being able to plug it directly into both patch panel rear ports, and interfaces, would account for both datacenters that present on patch panels, and those that leave a hanging cable in the rack. This option already exists: You can terminate a circuit directly to the device interface, bypassing the patch panel entirely (but perhaps annotating it in the circuit's comments). Which approach is best is left to the determination of the user. But ultimately the line of demarcation must be drawn somewhere.
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 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#7225
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?