Virtual Circuits

[Javier Guerra]

Hi, I would like to see implemented on network a section for virtual circuits, like circuits created using VLLs or VPLS instead of just physical connection circuits, it’s hard to document and track down virtual circuits on netbox at this moment as that is not implemented, please let me know your thoughts

 

Thanks,

 

Javier Gutierrez Guerra

Systems Administrator, Network Services

Westman Communications Group

Phone: 204-717-2827

Email: gue...@westmancom.com

 

           

 

[Andy Lemin]

Hi,

We really need this too! :)

We need to document all the different types of Ethernet virtual services as defined under the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) etc

http://www.mef.net/PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf

This would be great to see.

Thanks for your amazing work on Netbox

Kind Regards,

Andy Lemin

Sent from a teeny tiny keyboard, so please excuse typos

On 2 Apr 2019, at 15:22, Javier Guerra <Gue...@westmancom.com> wrote:

Hi, I would like to see implemented on network a section for virtual circuits, like circuits created using VLLs or VPLS instead of just physical connection circuits, it’s hard to document and track down virtual circuits on netbox at this moment as that is not implemented, please let me know your thoughts

 

Thanks,

 

Javier Gutierrez Guerra

Systems Administrator, Network Services

Westman Communications Group

Phone: 204-717-2827

Email: gue...@westmancom.com

<image001.png>

 

<image002.png>    <image003.png>    <image004.png>    <image005.png>

<image006.png>

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NetBox" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to netbox-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to netbox-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netbox-discuss/YTOPR0101MB16431E4BE1AF815D03059971DF560%40YTOPR0101MB1643.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeremy Stretch]

This has been proposed before and rejected due to the effort that would be required to support myriad arbitrary technologies and topologies. It is unfortunately out of scope for NetBox and will not be added.

Jeremy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netbox-discuss/FADFF98B-E949-47D7-9F22-5834691B3B31%40gmail.com.

[Andrew Lemin]

Hi Jeremy,

I agree that trying to implement virtual circuits according to the many vendor specific variants would be a case of chasing a moving target.

However the Metro Ethernet Forum defines the vendor neutral standards. Where every MEF Ethernet type translate to each of the vendors' various unique names and constructs. So this way you would be providing a simple common form covering all vendor cases with just the few MEF standards?

And not wanting to play devils advocate, but to be a DCIM, by definition kinda implies supporting the Data Centre networking standards? Maybe? Hehe ;)

Thanks again Jeremy, Andy.

[Daniel Sheppard]

Andrew, 

Even if this is something that could be incorporated, currently Netbox is not taking any new major feature requests due to the current backlog of feature requests.  Also, keep in mind the space that Netbox is normally used in is not the service provider space.

This would be a fairly major change as it would need either a new model or a substantial change to the current cable model (to support multiple cable connections and adding a different "cable" type).

Javier,

It is nice to see fellow Manitoban using Netbox.  The one thing I could suggest is start tagging interfaces with whatever VPLS identifier, and then you can use the tag to find the relevant interfaces.