Project Name:

  • Proposed name for the project: Open Lab
  • Proposed name for the repository: olab

Project description:

The primary focus of the ONAP Open Lab is to support the CI/CD of the board approved release use cases in a "real" environment.

Capacity permitting the Open Labs might also support:

– ONAP demos
   • Show case at conference
    • Users – details on access limitations will have to be worked

– Interoperability testing with multi-vendor’s hardware and software in “real” environment outside the board approved use case

Scope:

It builds and maintain the community integration labs:

  • Scripts and definitions for setting up a PoC sample deployment of use cases in lab settings
  • Provisioning, installation, and setup of all the telco equipment such as switches, routers, and gateways to enable end to end testing
  • Allow remote access to the lab environment for interoperability testing
  • Continuous Distribution (CD) to ONAP open labs from future releases

ONAP Integration Test Process in Open Labs:

ONAP Integration Test Process

Architecture Alignment:

  • How does this project fit into the rest of the ONAP Architecture?
  • What other ONAP projects does this project depend on?
    • All ONAP projects
  • How does this align with external standards/specifications?

  • Are there dependencies with other open source projects?

Open Labs


Time Period

Milestone

Events

Now-6/9

Use Cases Defined

  • Use cases defined after F2F meeting

6/10-6/29

M1

  • Open Labs for R1 approved by TSC
  • Open sourced version of VNFs defined
  • Legal template created
  • Vendor software and hardware defined
  • 2 pods ready in testing lab
  • Vendor’s license and software are available for testing lab
  • Manual installation started

6/30-8/3

M2

  • Open sourced version of VNFs  ready in open labs
  • Reference VNFs created
  • Vendor software and license delivered to open labs
  • Vendor hardware delivered to open lab

8/4-8/24

M3

  • Lab ready with vendor software installed and hardware connected manually
  • Use case implementation (install template, simulator, etc)

8/25-9/14

M4

  • Use case implementation (workflow, DG)

9/15-9/28

RC0

  • Finish use cases implementation (policy, data collection)

9/29-10/12

RC1

  • VNFs and service deployed by ONAP RC0 and test cases executed

10/13-10/26

RC2

  • VNF and service deployed by ONAP RC1 and test cases executed

10/27-11/2

Release

  • VNF and service deployed by ONAP RC2 and test cases executed Integration test report

Resources:

  • Primary Contact Person

Names, gerrit IDs, and company affiliations of the committers (in progress to clean the list)

NameGerrit IDEmailCompany AffiliationTime Zone
Helen Chen

helenc878

helen.chen@huawei.com

Huawei

Santa Clara, CA, USA

Chengli Wang


wangchengli@chinamobile.com

China Mobile

Beijing, China

Daniel Rose


dr695h@att.com

AT&T

Middletown, NJ, USA
Steven Smokowski

ss835w@att.com

AT&T

Middletown, NJ, USA

Marco Platania


platania@research.att.com

AT&T

Bedminster, NJ, USA

Christophe Closset


cc697w@intl.att.com

AT&T

Belgium

Anael Closson


ac2550@intl.att.com

AT&T

Belgium

Hector Anapan-Lavalle


ha076r@att.com

AT&T

Middletown, NJ, USA
Spondon Dey 
 sd4351@att.comAT&T Middletown, NJ, USA

Xiaolong Kong


xiaolong.kong@orange.com

Orange

Orange Gardens, France

François Despres


francois.despres@orange.com

Orange

Orange Gardens, France
Yi Yang

yangyi.bri@chinatelecom.cn

China Telecom


Luman Wang


wanglm.bri@chinatelecom.cn

China Telecom


Guangmin Liu


liuguangmin@huawei.com

Huawei

Shenzhen, China

Gary Wu


gary.i.wu@huawei.com

Huawei

Santa Clara, CA, USA

Kang Xi


kang.xi@huawei.com

Huawei

Bridgewater, NJ, USA

Yang Xu


yang.xu3@huawei.com

Huawei

Bridgewater, NJ, USA

Jianwen Ai


aijianwen@huawei.com

Huawei

Shenzhen, China

Murali p


murali.p@huawei.com

Huawei

India
Rui He

herui14@huawei.com

Huawei

Shenzhen, China
Xiaocheng Xing
xingxiaocheng@huawei.comHuaweiXian, China
Yingjie Ren
jeffery.ren@huawei.comHuaweiXian, China

Dmitriy Andrushko


dandrushko@mirantis.com

Mirantis

CA, USA
Elhay Efrat

elhay.efrat1@amdocs.com

Amdocs


Marc Volovic


marc.volovic@amdocs.com

Amdocs


Abhinav Singh


as0074150@techmahindra.com

TechMahindra


Sandeep Singh


ss0074540@techmahindra.com

TechMahindra


Jinhua Fu


fu.jinhua@zte.com.cn

ZTE


Yunlong Ying


ying.yunlong@zte.com.cn

ZTE


Yuanxing   Feng


feng.yuanxing@zte.com.cn

ZTE


Joe Zhang


zhang.zhou1@zte.com.cn

ZTE


Xinhui Lixinhuililxinhui@vmware.comVMwareBeijing, China
Bin Yangbiny993bin.yang@windriver.comWind RiverBeijing, China


  • Names and affiliations of any other contributors
NameEmailCompany AffiliationTime Zone
Catherine Lefevrecl664y@intl.att.comAT&TBelgium

Oliver Spatscheck

spatsch@research.att.com

AT&T

Bedminster, NJ, USA

Gil Hellmanngil.hellmann@windriver.comWind RiverToronto, ON, Canada
Stephen Goochstephen.gooch@windriver.comWind RiverAtlanta, GA, USA


  • Project Roles (include RACI chart, if applicable)
  • Other Information:
  • link to seed code (if applicable)

ECOMP existing repos:

      • demo

OPEN-O existing repos:

      • integration
  • Vendor Neutral

This project is vendor neutral

  • Meets Board policy (including IPR)

yes

Use the above information to create a key project facts section on your project page

Key Project Facts

Project Name: Open Lab

JIRA project name: Open Lab

JIRA project prefix: olab

Repo name:

    • olab
    • demo

Lifecycle State: incubation
Primary Contact:
Project Lead:
mailing list tag [olab] 
Committers:

See above

*Link to TSC approval: 
Link to approval of additional submitters: 

  • No labels

7 Comments

  1. Catherine Lefevre

    Please find some additional comments:

    • Can we also understand if the "Open Lab" proposals (CMCC, China Telecom, Orange, Winlab) are funded by themselves or is there any CAPEX/OPEX expectation?
    • Are these "Open Lab" proposals in addition to the "Physical Labs" (i.e. proposal 1-CMCC, 3-China Telecom, 5-Orange) or are they the same labs?
    • Can we also add the scope per Open Lab proposal (Dev, CIST, ETE, S3P and/or other)?
    • Shall we consider the ONAP Demo setup as a start then we extend the Open Labs based on the additional project needs?

    • Regarding the different "Open Lab" proposals, can we clarify if these labs 

      • are resilient or not
      • are accessible by the development teams and/or the CIST Team and/or the E2E Team and/or S3P Team => Need to define the Access Strategy/Restrictions to avoid usage's conflicts, hacking etc.
      • are supported during the local working hours only (excluding weekends) and have 24H SLA (or less)
      • have a configuration management strategy (including OpenStack flavor, OS, ONAP Version etc) and network topology posted on the ONAP wiki in order to understand what is tested
      • include any CI/CD environment i.e. local Maven/Jenkins/Nexus required to reduce the traffic with the LF CI/CD foundation

        Sonar and Gerrit will be the master on the Linux Foundation and we do not expect to create any copy on any Physical Lab

      • have any link to the ICE proposal

      • are aligned with any Legal Requirements




    1. Helen Chen

      Open Lab includes "Physical Lab" and "Virtual Lab" if Virtual Lab is in the scope of release 1. If not, Open Lab == Physical Lab.

  2. Gildas Lanilis

    We should also document a strategy and tools to clean up and upload the default configuration after someone has done his/her testing.

  3. Trevor Cooper

    Can ONAP Open Lab leverage or learn from the OPNFV lab project (Pharos) which has now been running for a few years. Pharos is responsible for the OPNFV lab infrastructure as well as a hardware/network specification for platform deployment (as a recommended baseline). The lab infrastructure is both technically and geographically diverse (Linux Foundation host one of the labs) for promoting a stable platform. All labs are CI environments while individual labs support development and/or production with functional and/or performance test frameworks. There is also an existing initiative to share infra resources across LF projects. 

  4. Brian Hedstrom

    Under the Architecture Alignment section, there are several items that have not been addressed.

    It's not clear if this proposed scope is including both a physical and virtual lab.

    It's not clear what the project deliverables are.

    It would help if this project proposal could define its relationship/dependencies with the Integration project, there seems to be overlap.

    The project indicates it is vendor neutral, but is specifying specific Intel servers.

  5. mazin gilbert

    We need to define a Budget milestone timeline for OpenLab. Is the lab requesting resources or any level of support (budget impacting) from the LF/TSC.

  6. Eric Debeau

    I agree with Trevor. We need to benefit from the OPNFV Pharos experience. I also believe we could have some "Open Labs" to help the community to "play" with some installed ONAP platform.