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

Not Paths Found on cable tracing of Rear Ports with Modules #7782

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:28:07 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:07 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jonatangobbato on GitHub (Mar 21, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.5

Python version

3.9

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a device A (Switch) and add some Interface SFP+
  2. Create a device B (Fiber Patch Panel) and add a Module with 12 Front ports (LC [1-12]) and 12 Rear Ports (SC [1-12])
  3. Create a device C (Fiber Patch Panel) and add a Module with 12 Front ports (LC [1-12]) and 12 Rear Ports (SC [1-12])
  4. Create a device D (Switch) and add some Interface SFP+
  5. Connect interface of Device A to 2 front Ports Of Device B LC 1 and LC2
  6. Connect the rear interfaces SC 1 and SC 2 of Device B to the rear interfaces SC 1 and SC 2 of the Device C
  7. Connect SFP+ interface of Device D to the front interfaces LC 1 and LC 2 of the device C.

Expected Behavior

When click on cable trace of the interface SFP+ of the device A, show the entire trace of the cable to the Device D, including the fiber patch panels on the way.

Observed Behavior

When click on the cable trace of Device A interface, only the trace to the device B are show, and a "Path split!" Warning appears and ask to select what nodes have to continue. When i click on one node, a page with the "No paths found" appears.

image

image

Originally created by @jonatangobbato on GitHub (Mar 21, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.5 ### Python version 3.9 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a device A (Switch) and add some Interface SFP+ 2. Create a device B (Fiber Patch Panel) and add a Module with 12 Front ports (LC [1-12]) and 12 Rear Ports (SC [1-12]) 3. Create a device C (Fiber Patch Panel) and add a Module with 12 Front ports (LC [1-12]) and 12 Rear Ports (SC [1-12]) 4. Create a device D (Switch) and add some Interface SFP+ 5. Connect interface of Device A to 2 front Ports Of Device B LC 1 and LC2 6. Connect the rear interfaces SC 1 and SC 2 of Device B to the rear interfaces SC 1 and SC 2 of the Device C 7. Connect SFP+ interface of Device D to the front interfaces LC 1 and LC 2 of the device C. ### Expected Behavior When click on cable trace of the interface SFP+ of the device A, show the entire trace of the cable to the Device D, including the fiber patch panels on the way. ### Observed Behavior When click on the cable trace of Device A interface, only the trace to the device B are show, and a "Path split!" Warning appears and ask to select what nodes have to continue. When i click on one node, a page with the "No paths found" appears. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/29125329/226637540-6f3cb5ef-cff8-4568-8494-5a0c0b8deed4.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/29125329/226637613-8afbc4e3-d041-4b93-8978-03f83c0115ae.png)
adam added the type: bugstatus: needs ownertopic: cablingseverity: low labels 2025-12-29 20:28:07 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:28:07 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jonatangobbato commented on GitHub (Mar 21, 2023):

Update.
IF no Module on device B and dedvice C, the trace works fine.

image

@jonatangobbato commented on GitHub (Mar 21, 2023): Update. IF no Module on device B and dedvice C, the trace works fine. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/29125329/226641242-adde16ba-576d-4fbf-b67f-66053f5cb591.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2023):

This might be fixed with #13337 (#11079), I will test when I have time

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2023): This might be fixed with #13337 (#11079), I will test when I have time
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2023):

@DanSheps were you able to test if this was fixed?

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2023): @DanSheps were you able to test if this was fixed?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2023):

@jonatangobbato would you be able to test this with NetBox v3.6.3? I think it is probably fixed

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Oct 5, 2023): @jonatangobbato would you be able to test this with NetBox v3.6.3? I think it is probably fixed
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2023):

This should be fixed, but let me test it out.

I think the big thing is going to be you shouldn't be using multi-position rear ports with multi-plex cables as we have no easy/clean way of telling which cable which rear port should connect to. You should instead use a single cable for each rear port (typically rear ports will be your plant fiber, if you are using multi-position ports, that is your "buffer" (12 fibers strands bundled). If you think of a 244, you would have:

  • 288 strands total
  • 24 buffers (Buffer tube really, Blue, Green, ... Blue-1, Green-1, etc)
  • 12 strands per buffer

Rear ports, with 12 positions, should be a single cable that is your "buffer". You shouldn't try and connect 2 "buffers" to 2 rear-ports.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2023): This **should** be fixed, but let me test it out. I think the big thing is going to be you shouldn't be using multi-position rear ports with multi-plex cables as we have no easy/clean way of telling which cable which rear port should connect to. You should instead use a single cable for each rear port (typically rear ports will be your plant fiber, if you are using multi-position ports, that is your "buffer" (12 fibers strands bundled). If you think of a 244, you would have: * 288 strands total * 24 buffers (Buffer tube really, Blue, Green, ... Blue-1, Green-1, etc) * 12 strands per buffer Rear ports, with 12 positions, should be a single cable that is your "buffer". You shouldn't try and connect 2 "buffers" to 2 rear-ports.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:28:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2023):

Tried 2 different ways:

image
https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/3079/trace/

image
https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/3080/trace/

I would say 100% fixed

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2023): Tried 2 different ways: ![image](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/11049792/1146a6a1-21f2-49aa-9af2-a4001069466e) https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/3079/trace/ ![image](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/11049792/55ced87d-adb7-4b66-9038-4753912596ec) https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/3080/trace/ I would say 100% fixed
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 severity: low status: needs owner topic: cabling type: bug
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#7782
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?