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 PLR4 40G optic type. #8210

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:33:49 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:49 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @davesbell on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.3

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Please can you add a new optic type 'PLR4'

These are the correct optic type to use when going from a 40G port to 4x10G ports.

https://www.flexoptix.net/en/q-1340g-10.html

Use case

Allows us to correctly model our optic. The current QSFP+ 40G optic type isn't the same as a PLR4 40G optic.

Database changes

To fit into the current naming scheme, it could probably be correctly represented by something like 'QSFP+ (4x10G)'

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @davesbell on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.3 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Please can you add a new optic type 'PLR4' These are the correct optic type to use when going from a 40G port to 4x10G ports. https://www.flexoptix.net/en/q-1340g-10.html ### Use case Allows us to correctly model our optic. The current QSFP+ 40G optic type isn't the same as a PLR4 40G optic. ### Database changes To fit into the current naming scheme, it could probably be correctly represented by something like 'QSFP+ (4x10G)' ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:33:49 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:33:50 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pobradovic08 commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2023):

I'm not sure that this is something that doesn't fall under QSFP+ 40G (It is a QSFP+ form factor, and it has 40G bitrate). All QSFP+ transcievers are 4x10G (the Q in the name), the only difference here is that it has those 4 channels on different fibers so you can easily break them out. This also holds true for QSFP+ 40G SR4 for example, as it also has an MPO connector and can be split to 4x10G easily, but is still modeled as just QSFP+ 40G.

@pobradovic08 commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2023): I'm not sure that this is something that doesn't fall under QSFP+ 40G (It is a QSFP+ form factor, and it has 40G bitrate). All QSFP+ transcievers are 4x10G (the Q in the name), the only difference here is that it has those 4 channels on different fibers so you can easily break them out. This also holds true for QSFP+ 40G SR4 for example, as it also has an MPO connector and can be split to 4x10G easily, but is still modeled as just QSFP+ 40G.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@apellini commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2023):

From SR4 it is different because this is a SM connector and has MPO interface that permits breakout. I think that is better to add but currently we don't track all SFP models. So I think for the moment it is better to use QSFP 40G as form factor and select SMF for fibre type.

@apellini commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2023): From SR4 it is different because this is a SM connector and has MPO interface that permits breakout. I think that is better to add but currently we don't track all SFP models. So I think for the moment it is better to use QSFP 40G as form factor and select SMF for fibre type.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 13, 2023):

There appears to be some conflation above of the optic type with its media type. As @pobradovic08 these should be modeled using one of the existing interface types.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 13, 2023): There appears to be some conflation above of the _optic_ type with its _media_ type. As @pobradovic08 these should be modeled using one of the existing interface types.
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#8210
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?