-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for VC's between interfaces #24
Comments
While it's not a focus at the moment to create VCs between interfaces. Adding a Virtual Circuit "mode" drop down and choosing between VLAN/MPLS which would then let you select interfaces vs VLANs seems reasonable. I'm not sure if we'll have time to complete that soon but we'd welcome a contribution to expand that! |
+1 on this feature request, assigning subinterfaces (virtual) would suit much better as our circuits are terminated on multiple devices inside the same rack/site so the VLAN option does not scale past one device Fantastic start however 👍 |
+1 and I agree with semaja2 Our Juniper network can have a virtual circuit, or "service" like VPLS that spans multiple devices, and terminates on either an interface or sub-interface (logical unit) - so this request would fit really well. The standard Netbox concept of a VLAN doesn't really work that well for routed networks where the VLAN X on one interface might be nothing to do with VLAN X on an other... |
That usecase would probably also works to document our backup GRE and IPsec tunnels. gr-0/0/1 on router1 is "connected" to gr-0/0/1 on router2 through VC1 |
I'm an engineer for an ISP and we are starting to use Netbox. We do alot of L2VPN and this virtual circuit plugin is a great but it's limited since it is based on vlans. A virtual circuit can span across multiple routers and have multiple interfaces(tagged or untagged) on each router, including virtual connections facing the core such as a MPLS pseudo-wire or an EVPN-EVI. For the virtual circuit model to work in our environment we would need it to be based on vlan and/or interface. We could get by just adding the ability for interfaces. If it were to be tailored for ISP environments it would also include:
Here is an bridge-domain example across three routers using MPLS: Router01:
Router02:
Router03:
For EVPN you would simply replace the neighbor statements with a single EVI command under each bridge domain which would contain an EVI ID. We would need to create a Virtual Circuit named "ACME_CUSTOMER_BD" and add all the interfaces above on all three routers. We could use the comments or custom field for the pseudo-wire ID (or in EVPN, the EVI ID). Then when the customer calls I can search by Tenant, Click on the Virtual Circuit stats, and then quickly find all interfaces which are a part of the L2VPN. I don't know a good way to document the core facing elements(Pws, EVI, Tunnels) since technologies would vary across users of Netbox so I think it would be sufficient to document these via comments. Adding interfaces would be a HUGE improvement. Thanks for your hard work in maintaining this plugin. |
Hi vapor-ware team,
Great plugin. This is something I've been looking for in netbox for sometime.
In an MPLS environment we generally pop the tags and create virtual circuits between interfaces / sub-interfaces.
Would you look to expand the feature set to support the creation of VC's between interfaces? Or would you accept a PR that creates this functionality?
I understand if you would prefer to keep this plugin limited to your own use case, but happy to contribute should you be willing to expand it.
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: