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

Creating Dual Personality Port Types In Interface Templates #9888

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:24:01 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:24:01 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Theyouth1 on GitHub (Jun 24, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.0.5

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Hi Netbox Community,

I have come across a few devices which utilize a dual personality port but have found there is no good way to list these interfaces under the currently available interfaces types.

I would like to suggest another category under the ethernet section much like the "ethernet (fixed)" and "ethernet (modular)" sections. I would suggest "ethernet (Dual Personality)" as the section header and each interface type under this section could be labelled:
1000BASE-T or SFP
10GBASE-T or SFP+
as a few examples

Use case

Currently users have to rely on using the description when using the interface template to let other users know if an interface is dual personality.

From adding a dual personality interface section and related types, users could clearly label a port as dual personality with out having to rely on the description. Meaning data could be more accurately and consistently be recorded as types is a required field when using the template.

Database changes

I apologise but I am not sure if this would require changes to the data schema. I would imagine it will require new entries to the existing interface types database. But I don't believe it will require any new tables. Apologies if I am incorrect about this.

External dependencies

No new external dependencies would be required for this.

Originally created by @Theyouth1 on GitHub (Jun 24, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.0.5 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Hi Netbox Community, I have come across a few devices which utilize a dual personality port but have found there is no good way to list these interfaces under the currently available interfaces types. I would like to suggest another category under the ethernet section much like the "ethernet (fixed)" and "ethernet (modular)" sections. I would suggest "ethernet (Dual Personality)" as the section header and each interface type under this section could be labelled: 1000BASE-T or SFP 10GBASE-T or SFP+ as a few examples ### Use case Currently users have to rely on using the description when using the interface template to let other users know if an interface is dual personality. From adding a dual personality interface section and related types, users could clearly label a port as dual personality with out having to rely on the description. Meaning data could be more accurately and consistently be recorded as types is a required field when using the template. ### Database changes I apologise but I am not sure if this would require changes to the data schema. I would imagine it will require new entries to the existing interface types database. But I don't believe it will require any new tables. Apologies if I am incorrect about this. ### External dependencies No new external dependencies would be required for this.
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 21:24:01 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:24:01 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:24:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2024):

This has been proposed in the past and no workable solution has been achieved. The physical state of an interface cannot be ambiguous; it must be one type or another. The recommended practice is to define the interface using whichever physical type is in use, as that most accurately reflects reality.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2024): This has been proposed in the past and no workable solution has been achieved. The physical state of an interface cannot be ambiguous; it **must** be one type or another. [The recommended practice](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Data-Model-Limitations#combo-ports) is to define the interface using whichever physical type is in use, as that most accurately reflects reality.
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#9888
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?