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 etherchannel interface type #75

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:31:38 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:38 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @markve-sa on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016).

Please may we be able to create an etherchannel interface type with the ability to add physical interfaces to them

Amazing work so far. Most comprehensive IPAM I've seen

Originally created by @markve-sa on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016). Please may we be able to create an etherchannel interface type with the ability to add physical interfaces to them Amazing work so far. Most comprehensive IPAM I've seen
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:31:38 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016):

We should think about this carefully to include things like MLAG.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2016): We should think about this carefully to include things like MLAG.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@rdujardin commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2016):

An idea : simply add a boolean field "lag" to Interface.
Interfaces connected to a lag interface can either be lag too which means a true connection between two lags, or not be lag which means they belong to the lag.
It's simple, it allows to point at interfaces no matter lagged or not (compatible with #267 for instance), it allows MLAG, etc.

@rdujardin commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2016): An idea : simply add a boolean field "lag" to Interface. Interfaces connected to a lag interface can either be lag too which means a true connection between two lags, or not be lag which means they belong to the lag. It's simple, it allows to point at interfaces no matter lagged or not (compatible with #267 for instance), it allows MLAG, etc.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2016):

I'd say that this needs to be a seperate model, in that it needs to have a relationship to it's component interfaces. I like the LAG "name" as it's generic, and is used with many platforms. I'd suggest fields would need to include LAG type (e.g. LACP, PAGP, "Vanilla Etherchannel", VPC, VPC+, etc...).
For best use, it should be possible to exist over multiple devices, which is common now.
To that end, perhaps it needs to be a new model, with a new ForeignKey (rather than a boolean) looking up to it in the Interface model. I think this would work in all cases, although there would be the (very useful) need to sanity check the membership.
The difficulty might be in representing this in the device Interface list, as it's a different table. That said, looking at the Device view, a LAG box could sit above the Interfaces box?

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2016): I'd say that this needs to be a seperate model, in that it needs to have a relationship to it's component interfaces. I like the LAG "name" as it's generic, and is used with many platforms. I'd suggest fields would need to include LAG type (e.g. LACP, PAGP, "Vanilla Etherchannel", VPC, VPC+, etc...). For best use, it should be possible to exist over multiple devices, which is common now. To that end, perhaps it needs to be a new model, with a new ForeignKey (rather than a boolean) looking up to it in the Interface model. I think this would work in all cases, although there would be the (very useful) need to sanity check the membership. The difficulty might be in representing this in the device Interface list, as it's a different table. That said, looking at the Device view, a LAG box could sit above the Interfaces box?
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017):

Yay :)

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2017): Yay :)
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
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#75
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?