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 Juniper VCP interface type to stacking choices #764

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:25:35 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:35 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lampwins on GitHub (Mar 13, 2017).

Issue type: feature request

Minor request to have Juniper VCP (Virtual Chassis Port) added as an interface type choice under the "Stacking" section.

Originally created by @lampwins on GitHub (Mar 13, 2017). ### Issue type: feature request Minor request to have Juniper VCP (Virtual Chassis Port) added as an interface type choice under the "Stacking" section.
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 16:25:35 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:25:35 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

As far as I'm aware, Juniper utilizes standard Ethernet interfaces for stacking. The Cisco types are included only because they are physical interface definitions.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): As far as I'm aware, Juniper utilizes standard Ethernet interfaces for stacking. The Cisco types are included only because they are physical interface definitions.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

Not all the switches use standard types.

For instance, EX4200 series switches use a proprietary Twinax cable.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 14:15 Jeremy Stretch, notifications@github.com
wrote:

As far as I'm aware, Juniper utilizes standard Ethernet interfaces for
stacking. The Cisco types are included only because they are physical
interface definitions.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/960#issuecomment-286512463,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABfg5sXWEQzzBHHQke5AugUXaYTnbXRQks5rltk6gaJpZM4MbuVE
.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): Not all the switches use standard types. For instance, EX4200 series switches use a proprietary Twinax cable. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 14:15 Jeremy Stretch, <notifications@github.com> wrote: > As far as I'm aware, Juniper utilizes standard Ethernet interfaces for > stacking. The Cisco types are included only because they are physical > interface definitions. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/960#issuecomment-286512463>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABfg5sXWEQzzBHHQke5AugUXaYTnbXRQks5rltk6gaJpZM4MbuVE> > . >
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

Is it worth considering this being changed to be a table? That way the code wouldn't require updates every time a new speed of Gigabit Ethernet is announced!

@specialcircumstances commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): Is it worth considering this being changed to be a table? That way the code wouldn't require updates every time a new speed of Gigabit Ethernet is announced!
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@AlexanderS commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

See #167 for the reasoning, why this is hard coded and not configurable.

@AlexanderS commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): See #167 for the reasoning, why this is hard coded and not configurable.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

To add to what @jsenecal said, Juniper does have proprietary physical interfaces for many models like Cisco but they do also allow the use of regular interfaces for stacking as well, like @jeremystretch said. It should be noted that when this is the case, the interface in converted so that it no longer looks or acts like a standard interface to the system (it is renamed and renumbered). So they look and act like traditional (proprietary) stacking interfaces.

But in short, yes Juniper does have proprietary VCP interfaces.

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): To add to what @jsenecal said, Juniper does have proprietary _physical_ interfaces for many models like Cisco but they do also allow the use of regular interfaces for stacking as well, like @jeremystretch said. It should be noted that when this is the case, the interface in converted so that it no longer looks or acts like a standard interface to the system (it is renamed and renumbered). So they look and act like traditional (proprietary) stacking interfaces. But in short, yes Juniper does have proprietary VCP interfaces.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

I'm fine with adding any of the physical types if we can determine the canonical names.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): I'm fine with adding any of the physical types if we can determine the canonical names.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:25:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017):

They are simply called Virtual Chassis Ports or more commonly referred to as VCP's.

http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/requirements/cable-ex4200-virtual-chassis-cabling-examples.html

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2017): They are simply called Virtual Chassis Ports or more commonly referred to as VCP's. http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/requirements/cable-ex4200-virtual-chassis-cabling-examples.html
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#764
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?