Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Request for more interface types: STM1/OC3 #2089

Closed
oysteingy opened this issue May 11, 2018 · 0 comments
Closed

Request for more interface types: STM1/OC3 #2089

oysteingy opened this issue May 11, 2018 · 0 comments
Labels
status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application

Comments

@oysteingy
Copy link

Issue type

[X] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: ALL
  • NetBox version: ALL

Description

Hi,

First, thanks for the impressive work done to Netbox.

I have a request for more type of interfaces, namely STM1/OC3

STM1 and OC3 has been mentioned several times in #167, yet I can't see any reason why this particular interface type has not been added - I assume that no-one have really requested this particular interface type, only mentioned it.

As OC3 and STM1 uses the same type of hardware, i believe it's reasonable to group them together as done with IFACE_FF_100ME_FIXED, '100BASE-TX (10/100ME).'

The necessary work should be trivial, adding two lines to dcim/constants.py

IFACE_FF_STM1 = 4060
 [IFACE_FF_STM1, 'STM1/OC3 (155 Mbps)'],

I'm glad to make a PR for it if this looks reasonable.
@jeremystretch jeremystretch added the status: under review Further discussion is needed to determine this issue's scope and/or implementation label May 11, 2018
@jeremystretch jeremystretch added status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application and removed status: under review Further discussion is needed to determine this issue's scope and/or implementation labels Nov 30, 2018
@jeremystretch jeremystretch mentioned this issue Dec 7, 2018
Merged
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 16, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@jeremystretch @oysteingy