Document 'shared' interfaces....Cisco 4948 ports45-48 #8412
-
We have some old Cisco 4948 switches that have 'shared' or 'alternate' ports for G1/45-G1/48. So if we are using G1/45 and G1/48 (RJ45), but G1/46 and G1/47 (Fiber SFP Transceiver), how in Netbox can we indicate that difference? Apologies if this is already addressed, I search for 'shared port', 'shared interface', etc. but nothing relevant popped up. Thanks, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
There's a bit on the wiki about dealing with this type of interface. Unfortunately there's no great solution: The conventional approach is to only model the interface that you actually use. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You can change the port type when editing the interface from 1000base-t to 1000base-x-sfp when you change how it's populated.
On some devices you may have Te1/1/1-2 and Gi1/1/1-4 that share SFP ports and show up as distinct interfaces in the config even though they can't all be populated at the same time; in that case you'd probably model all of them, to match the config and have procedure around the fact that Te1/1/1 can't be populated if Gi1/1/1 is or vice versa, kind of the same as you would if they were being configured by hand.
—
Mark Tinberg ***@***.***>
Division of Information Technology-Network Services
University of Wisconsin-Madison
…________________________________
From: Dirk Melvin ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 9:59 AM
To: netbox-community/netbox ***@***.***>
Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***>
Subject: [netbox-community/netbox] Document 'shared' interfaces....Cisco 4948 ports45-48 (Discussion #8412)
We have some old Cisco 4948 switches that have 'shared' or 'alternate' ports for G1/45-G1/48.
Ports 45-48 have the regular RJ45/Copper ports....but also Ports 45-48 as SFP ports...in the config you don't differentiate between the port names, that are all configured as G1/45 - G1/48.
So if we are using G1/45 and G1/48 (RJ45), but G1/46 and G1/47 (Fiber SFP Transceiver), how in Netbox can we indicate that difference?
Apologies if this is already addressed, I search for 'shared port', 'shared interface', etc. but nothing relevant popped up.
Thanks,
Dirk
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#8412>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAS7UM5ARJ5XKYFKKNEER5LUXAWNPANCNFSM5MNEOCBA>.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
My solution is in the Device Type to create both types of interface with different names:
Then I mark the ones I'm not using as "disabled". This correctly models that there are distinct physical ports; the downside is that interface names no longer exactly match the interface names in the config You could create a virtual interface 1/0/24, and set its parent to be 1/0/24F or 1/0/24T as appropriate. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
There's a bit on the wiki about dealing with this type of interface. Unfortunately there's no great solution: The conventional approach is to only model the interface that you actually use.