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

Global Topology Maps Connections types #951

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:27:11 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:27:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @sirnicke on GitHub (May 15, 2017).

Issue type: feature request

In the Topology Maps all the connections look the same, it would be nice to be able to differentiate the different types of connections between devices.

Examples of improvements:

  • Show/hide Planned connections.
  • Color code LAG interfaces.
  • Color code Port types.
Originally created by @sirnicke on GitHub (May 15, 2017). ### Issue type: feature request In the Topology Maps all the connections look the same, it would be nice to be able to differentiate the different types of connections between devices. Examples of improvements: - Show/hide Planned connections. - Color code LAG interfaces. - Color code Port types.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:27:12 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:27:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 15, 2017):

I want to avoid getting too carried away with the topology maps, at least until we have a more robust manner of rendering them.

Show/hide Planned connections.

We can render planned connections as dashed/dotted lines.

Color code LAG interfaces.

Each member in a LAG is rendered separately. We could color-code LAG members, but this wouldn't differentiate one set of members from another.

Color code Port types.

There aren't enough readily discernible colors for this to be practical.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 15, 2017): I want to avoid getting too carried away with the topology maps, at least until we have a more robust manner of rendering them. > Show/hide Planned connections. We can render planned connections as dashed/dotted lines. > Color code LAG interfaces. Each member in a LAG is rendered separately. We could color-code LAG members, but this wouldn't differentiate one set of members from another. > Color code Port types. There aren't enough readily discernible colors for this to be practical.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:27:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sirnicke commented on GitHub (May 15, 2017):

I understand,

Maybe you could render LAGs as dotted lines and/or use different background or outline colors.

With Port types I meant more like link speeds, my bad. Like different colors for different speeds.

@sirnicke commented on GitHub (May 15, 2017): I understand, Maybe you could render LAGs as dotted lines and/or use different background or outline colors. With Port types I meant more like link speeds, my bad. Like different colors for different speeds.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:27:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2017):

There isn't really any reasonable way (AFAICT) of representing LAGs using graphviz. It is possible to draw a single line with multiple peripheries but it looks really bad because it doesn't attach nicely to the nodes.

I don't like assigning colors to edges because a) you quickly run out of colors and b) the lighter-colored edges end up being harder to see. Keep in mind that topology maps are not intended to replace proper drawings; they're a convenience function just to quickly generate a basic map.

We can revisit these ideas in the future if we adopt something more robust than graphviz, but for I'd like to avoid doing too much with it.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2017): There isn't really any reasonable way (AFAICT) of representing LAGs using graphviz. It is possible to draw a single line with multiple [peripheries](http://www.graphviz.org/doc/info/attrs.html#d:peripheries) but it looks really bad because it doesn't attach nicely to the nodes. I don't like assigning colors to edges because a) you quickly run out of colors and b) the lighter-colored edges end up being harder to see. Keep in mind that topology maps are not intended to replace proper drawings; they're a convenience function just to quickly generate a basic map. We can revisit these ideas in the future if we adopt something more robust than graphviz, but for I'd like to avoid doing too much with it.
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#951
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?