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

New SAS/SFP+ interface types #8087

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @artiomello on GitHub (May 18, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.1

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Hi,

As per How Can I Add New Interface Types, requesting to please add

  1. SAS/mini-SAS interface types, which, for some reason, are missing altogether from Netbox. More info here.
  2. 32GFC and 64GFC to Fiber Channel SFP+ selection, which currently tops out at 16GFC.
    32/64GCF SFP+ seems to be a Lenovo/Brocade offering. More info here.

Use case

Due to the fact that both SAS/mini-SAS and 32/64GCF SFP+ inteface types are missing from Netbox, we cannot properly document our equipment.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @artiomello on GitHub (May 18, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.1 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Hi, As per [How Can I Add New Interface Types](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions#how-can-i-add-new-interface-types), requesting to please add 1. `SAS/mini-SAS` interface types, which, for some reason, are missing altogether from Netbox. [More info here. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Attached_SCSI#Connectors) 2. `32GFC `and `64GFC `to Fiber Channel SFP+ selection, which currently tops out at 16GFC. 32/64GCF SFP+ seems to be a Lenovo/Brocade offering. [More info here.](https://lenovopress.lenovo.com/lp1358-thinksystem-db720s-gen7-fc-san-switch#transceivers-and-cables) ### Use case Due to the fact that both SAS/mini-SAS and 32/64GCF SFP+ inteface types are missing from Netbox, we cannot properly document our equipment. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 18, 2023):

The SAS/mini-SAS would likely be added as part of #11506 if that is undertaken. Otherwise, this has been proposed before and did not gain enough traction:

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 18, 2023): The SAS/mini-SAS would likely be added as part of #11506 if that is undertaken. Otherwise, this has been proposed before and did not gain enough traction: * #11855 * #11474 * #10265 * #6549 * #3617 * #2715 * #659
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@artiomello commented on GitHub (May 22, 2023):

Well, while I'm definitely for the expansion of what Netbox has to offer, I personally don't see the added benefit of documenting disk and raid properties here in Netbox.

With that said, interface type is just a hardcoded string that does not require any additional development whatsoever. At least from what I've been configuring, the interface object properties don't change depending on its type.

What I'm requesting, as per the FAQ, is to add "a commercially-available interface type that has not yet been added to NetBox". And from the perspective of it being just a plain old hardcoded string, I don't see a problem in adding neither 32/64GCF SFP+ nor miniSAS connectors.

Half of the available ones just as easily could be replaced with the nondescript Other type. Therefore I don't see why it would hurt anyone to have a better way of describing the storage "network"/connections.

@artiomello commented on GitHub (May 22, 2023): Well, while I'm definitely for the expansion of what Netbox has to offer, I personally don't see the added benefit of documenting disk and raid properties here in Netbox. With that said, `interface type` is just a hardcoded string that does not require any additional development whatsoever. At least from what I've been configuring, the interface object properties don't change depending on its type. What I'm requesting, as per the FAQ, is to add "_a commercially-available interface type that has not yet been added to NetBox_". And from the perspective of it being just a plain old hardcoded string, I don't see a problem in adding neither `32/64GCF SFP+` nor `miniSAS` connectors. Half of the available ones just as easily could be replaced with the nondescript Other type. Therefore I don't see why it would hurt anyone to have a better way of describing the storage "network"/connections.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jose-d commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2023):

Well, while I'm definitely for the expansion of what Netbox has to offer, I personally don't see the added benefit of documenting disk and raid properties here in Netbox.

yesterday I was documenting our storage setup consisting from one RAID enclosure (with redundant controller pair), and some JBODs connected using randundant SAS cables - at the end I used "other" interface type. In our setup we use two types of cabling (6gbps and 12gbps SAS) and having this in netbox as prefefined interface type would be nice to have!

@jose-d commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2023): > Well, while I'm definitely for the expansion of what Netbox has to offer, I personally don't see the added benefit of documenting disk and raid properties here in Netbox. yesterday I was documenting our storage setup consisting from one RAID enclosure (with redundant controller pair), and some JBODs connected using randundant SAS cables - at the end I used "other" interface type. In our setup we use two types of cabling (6gbps and 12gbps SAS) and having this in netbox as prefefined interface type would be nice to have!
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@danb21t commented on GitHub (Aug 31, 2023):

I'd like to see SAS interfaces added to the Netbox Interface Types.

Currently fitting out our DCIM and have a lot of NetApp hardware of which this would be beneficial.

@danb21t commented on GitHub (Aug 31, 2023): I'd like to see SAS interfaces added to the Netbox Interface Types. Currently fitting out our DCIM and have a lot of NetApp hardware of which this would be beneficial.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 30, 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 (Nov 30, 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 20:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 30, 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 (Dec 30, 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.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jose-d commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024):

Oki, to me it looks it should be not rocket science to implement this.

to me it seems that patch of:

I'm fine to try that so I'm reading submitting-pull-requests and I see:

  • A user opens a new issue (bug report or feature request)
  • ✅ - this happened here
  • A maintainer triages the issue and may mark it as needing an owner
  • 🙏🏻 oki, would it be possible, please, maintainer? We have multiple autoclosed issues related to this one IRRC.
  • The issue's author can volunteer to own it, or someone else can
  • A maintainer assigns the issue to whomever volunteers
  • The issue owner submits a pull request that will resolve the issue
  • A maintainer reviews and merges the pull request, closing the issue
@jose-d commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024): Oki, to me it looks it should be not rocket science to implement this. to me it seems that patch of: * https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/tests/test_views.py * https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/dcim/choices.py is enough. I'm fine to try that so I'm reading [submitting-pull-requests](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md#arrow_heading_up-submitting-pull-requests) and I see: - [x] A user opens a new issue (bug report or feature request) - ✅ - this happened here - [ ] A maintainer triages the issue and may mark it as needing an owner - 🙏🏻 oki, would it be possible, please, maintainer? We have multiple autoclosed issues related to this one IRRC. - [ ] The issue's author can volunteer to own it, or someone else can - [ ] A maintainer assigns the issue to whomever volunteers - [ ] The issue owner submits a pull request that will resolve the issue - [ ] A maintainer reviews and merges the pull request, closing the issue
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024):

I'm fine to try that so I'm reading submitting-pull-requests and I see:

What would the scope be? As mentioned, the SAS interfaces would likely be added as part of a larger storage management change. Would you be interested in just modelling the extra SFP+ modules for now?

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024): > I'm fine to try that so I'm reading [submitting-pull-requests](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md#arrow_heading_up-submitting-pull-requests) and I see: What would the scope be? As mentioned, the SAS interfaces would likely be added as part of a larger storage management change. Would you be interested in just modelling the extra SFP+ modules for now?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jose-d commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2024):

@DanSheps, I thought I'd in choices.py add into class InterfaceTypeChoices:

...
# Storage
    TYPE_SFF_8614 = 'sff-8614'
...
CHOICES = (
...
        (
            'Storage',
            (
                (TYPE_SFF_8614, 'SFF-8614 (Mini-SAS HD)'),
            )
        ),
...
)
...
@jose-d commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2024): @DanSheps, I thought I'd in `choices.py` add into `class InterfaceTypeChoices`: ```python ... # Storage TYPE_SFF_8614 = 'sff-8614' ... CHOICES = ( ... ( 'Storage', ( (TYPE_SFF_8614, 'SFF-8614 (Mini-SAS HD)'), ) ), ... ) ... ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2024):

As mentioned above, SAS storage interfaces would be captured by the above FR and would be be accepted under this. I don't think there is much to do here right now.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2024): As mentioned above, SAS storage interfaces would be captured by the above FR and would be be accepted under this. I don't think there is much to do here right now.
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#8087
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?