How to model a circuit as terminating on provider's demarc switch port?

[Jonathon Reinhart]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to model something simple but can't figure out the NetBox way to do it:

Our provider has a 5 GbE + 2 SFP port switch (MRV OS606) in our rack, which serves as the demarcation point. We have three circuits (one dedicated internet access, two metro Ethernet / E-Lines to other sites), each of which is demarcated / terminates on one of those switch ports. (Their fiber connects to one of the SFP ports, but I don't really need to model that.)

I've created the switch in NetBox and added the ports as Interfaces, like a normal switch.

I created the Circuits in NetBox.

How do I make it such that those Circuits terminate at those Interfaces?

• I don't believe I should connect the Circuit to the demarc switch Interface; it's my router that should be connected to that Interface.
• I could forget about modeling the carrier's demarc switch, and instead connect my router to the Circuit, but that's not ideal: I want to populate the slot in my rack and keep track of which port corresponds to which circuit
• I see that the Circuit termination has free-form patch panel and cross-connect IDs, but those don't form object associations
• I could instead model the demarc switch ports as Front Ports, and create dummy Rear Ports which connect to the Circuit
  • This seems like the closest to reality, but seems a little strange

Naturally, I'd like to be able to cable trace:

edge router A <--> demarc switch A <--> E-Line circuit <--> demarc switch B <--> edge router B

How do you more experienced users model something like this?

Also noteworthy is that issue #4900 is to be resolved in the upcoming 2.10 release; I'm not sure if this will bring any relevant changes.

Thanks a lot,

Jonathon Reinhart

[justi...@gmail.com]

If you're determined to model the provider switch, then option 4 is probably your best option because it reflects physical and logical reality most completely.

Personally, I prefer not to model any gear not under my control if I can help it.  I have a hard enough time getting everyone to keep changes up to date without having to worry about what some other company is doing!  We use option 2 in your list for our documentation.

[Óskar Egilsson]

Hi,

I have the exact same issue. also posted a query here in the group.

(my post is a bit complicated as it involved a bug that was in my release that I was not aware of but is now fixed)

https://groups.google.com/g/netbox-discuss/c/8rAoptJ0gq0/m/FV43_7jKAwAJ

After some playing around I ended up with option four using front/rear ports on the SP equipment.

This means I model my SP equipment to be able to populate the rack correctly, and also able to indicate the cabling correctly.

This option works fine and could get better with a little tweaking in Netbox features to make great.

I´m about to install the 2.10beta that I think wont help, and might even get worse in regards to cable trace.

I believe cable trace over a circuit will no longer be supported.

The things I had hoped for using your example:

edge router A <--> demarc switch A <--> E-Line circuit <--> demarc switch B <--> edge router B  

Currently the above works and also as a trace ( using 2.9).

But small downside on "edge router A" the interface is indicated it is connected directly to "edge router B". (and vice versa)

When you click the trace icon it will show the full path and the circuit. (nice)

I´m not against it showing far-end termination, but would have liked to see some icon (globe?) similar when you connect a interface directly to a circuit. To indicate that the Edge router was connected via circuit to the far-end edge router. and preferably the circuit ID if possible.