Closed BarbarossaTM closed 5 years ago
To clarify, the bug here isn't that you can't connect wifi interfaces, it is that the wifi interface shows a connection option.
Connecting wifi interfaces was proposed and rejected in #2067 as per @jeremystretch in #2730. I wouldn't mind if @jeremystretch revisited this as I would love to be able to connect my backhauls, however he is understandably busy with more pressing issues.
It might be better to allow a "Circuit" to terminate on a wifi interface, than a "Cable"
I don't disagree with that idea.
Agree. A cable-in-the-air is a bit too abstract to fit the current list of physical cables, it is more like the pre 2.5 versions model of a logic connection. It could be represented as a separate type of "cable" where color, label, length, and connector is irrelevant - or maybe like a virtual hub?
Hi,
I see the point that with the current cable management (which is great, thanks for that <3) you can "only" PTP links but no PTMP. For me this wouldn't be a blocker to allow connecting two WIFI interfaces as a lot of people (as this thread and the comments in the other tickets show without a doubt) do.
If one would like to connect multiple device one could "hack" that by adding a "WIFI Cloud" device with lots of interfaces ;-)
So IMHO it would be REALLY great if connecting wifi interfaces would be possible.
Best Max
or maybe like a virtual hub?
The nearest thing like that is a VLAN.
You can already associate a wireless interface with a VLAN, either directly (set 802.1Q mode "Access" then update then "Add VLANs"); or indirectly (via its IP address sitting within a prefix which in turn is associated to a VLAN). Either way models multipoint wireless connections reasonably well I think - any further would require modelling channels/frequencies.
There's still an argument that point-to-point wireless is different, and might be usefully modelled as a circuit.
But it's not a "cable". If you were running a cable to anything, it would be an antenna.
The Netbox concept of "interface" combines a physical entity (a port), a layer 2 entity (some electronics with a MAC address) and a layer 3 interface (IP address(es)).
Suppose you have three PCs connected into a switch. All three PCs are "neighbours" in the sense that they are sharing the same VLAN and subnet. But Netbox doesn't show all three PC interfaces as connected to each other directly. Instead you have:
(2) and (3) are just as applicable to wireless as to wired. If you wanted to model (1) for wireless then it would be some sort of wifi domain, but it would be multipoint, unlike a cable or circuit. In that regard it would be similar to VLAN, although the same VLAN could be spread over both wired and wireless parts of the network.
Adding RF and SSID attributes to VLAN might be an idea, but you can already use Description for that, or Custom Fields.
Thanks everyone for the discussion here. Let me try to sum up:
Environment
Steps to Reproduce
Expected Behavior
I expected the wifi interface of device B to be shown in the interfaces list on the cable page.
This is relevant for documenting point-to-point wifi backhaul links and automation of their configuration accordingly.
Observed Behavior
Only wired interfaces are shown in the drop-down on the cable page which doesn't make sense as those should be incompatible.
Best Max