Agenda:

  • Agenda review
  • ONAP feedback to ETSI
  • Allotted Resource / Network Slicing
  • VNFD new requirements
  • Meeting time change due to DST

Material:

Minutes:

  • ONAP feedback to ETSI
    • Which version of IFA015 is used when doing the analysis?
      • it's v2.5.1, confirmed by Jessie
  • Allotted Resource / Network Slicing
    • Background: service IM call has a discussion on network slicing model, a question is raised on how to model the sharing of a RAN (or other) NSS, allotted resource vs filter based design
    • Is the model targeting sharing the DU, firewall, or a slice?
      • (need create operation/workflow to) reconfigure the DU, and share the slice
      • the operation is for service level
    • How is the onboarding process like?
      • it's preferred that vendor provides the workflow
    • the proposal from Amdocs is to utilise the nested NS/service concept to model the slice sharing
    • Borislov: don't think allotted resource is overlapping with the current proposal
      • the intent is not to use allotted resource, but could be combined
      • Gil agrees that nesting is not overlapped with allotted resource, but it's not sufficient, need to describe the sharing of VNFs
      • Borislov: do not think it's necessary to go into the resources, the services could be shared with service level operation (not go into the service)
    • How to model the shared service?
      • Example: how to model the shared DU (DUaaS in the slides)?
    • AP:
      • The main question seems to be: whether need to model the resource level for the slice sharing use case, or how to model the shared service (in detail)
      • It's suggested to give clearer/detailed model for a 5G slice and how to use allotted resource
      • suggest interested people: Borislov, Andrei, Gil, Ben, Thinh and others to have further offline discussions
  • VNFD new requirements
    • agreed proposals:
      • affinity/anti-affinity rule for the VduCpd
      • others
    • suggest to move the run time VNF instance model out of this page and could modify the class name to VnfInstance; and to clarify which ONAP component would update the attributes
    • AP:
      • Chuyi would mark the proposals that are mature enough for asking for approval (a new page is created: Requirements for VNFD - To be approved)
      • people who are interested please help further review the proposal
      • move the instance model to a seperated page for further discussion
  • Meeting time change

2 Comments

  1. Jessie S Jewitt

    Sorry to have missed the call. One comment{ when the Vnf model was first created  is that ETSI calls it Vnf and specifically NOT VnfInstance.

    1. Xu Yang

      Hi Jessie, thanks for the comment. I think we will have a seperate discussion on the instance model. If agreed, we could bring the feedback to ETSI suggesting them to rename the class. To be clear, there's no agreement on this suggestion yet. Only a concern is raised that it's hard to tell the class is an instance model by its name.