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.

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

Permit KMZ/KML attachments on circuits? #2253

Closed
bellwood opened this issue Jul 19, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Permit KMZ/KML attachments on circuits? #2253

bellwood opened this issue Jul 19, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@bellwood
Copy link
Contributor

bellwood commented Jul 19, 2018

Issue type

[X] Feature request

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.6
  • NetBox version: 2.3.5

Description

Similar to other attachments but permit/allow attaching KMZ/KML files for circuits.

These files show the actual path a circuit (Fiber, etc) would traverse geographically in Google Earth. Most carriers will provide their ISP customers with these for mapping/diversity/build purposes.

KML is essentially XML:
https://googlemaps.github.io/kml-samples/interactive/index.html

Edit: clarified Carrier/ISP

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

I really want to avoid attaching miscellaneous files to objects in NetBox, which isn't really suitable as a document store. An alternative approach would be to link to the file(s) hosted elsewhere using a custom field on the circuit object. #969 would even allow for the use of a templatized link.

@bellwood
Copy link
Contributor Author

The issue there is storing confidential/proprietary/protected information on a third-party system could/would be in violation of SOC.

Given that a KMZ/KML is directly related 1:1 on a circuit its hardly miscellaneous, its the "source of truth" for a circuit.

Just my .02 but Netbox would be more attractive if it had some additional convenience functions that would help me as an IT administrator reduce the number of programs/systems I need to have.

Not saying Netbox needs to be a bloated beast, but, for those of us who are under strict and tight audit/compliance guidelines reducing the number of in-scope systems makes our lives so much easier and Netbox has the potential to do that.

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

The issue there is storing confidential/proprietary/protected information on a third-party system could/would be in violation of SOC.

It wouldn't need to be a third-party system. Any file store accessible from the client accessing NetBox would work.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 17, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants