Team:
Lead:
Team:
ramki krishnan , Srinivasa Addepalli, Vimal Begwani, Mike Elliott, Vijay Venkatesh Kumar , Avi Chapnick , Borislav Glozman , Fernando Oliveira , Tal Liron , Margaret Chiosi , ravi rao , Raghu Ranganathan , Michael O'Brien Xin Miao
Others – please add yourself if you are interested
Meetings:
Every week as part of Edge Automation WG – Edge Automation through ONAP
Status:
Draft.
Plan to be finalized in Arch. sub committee meeting on 01/15/2018.
References:
- ONAP Dublin Architecture Requirements: https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/OPNFV-ONAP+January+2019+Session+Proposals?preview=/8257582/10551784/2019-01%20Dublin%20Architecture%20Requirements-pa1.pptx
- DCAE Platform Requirements: https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/28379482/DCAE%20Platform%20Requirements.pptx?api=v2
Activity Description:
Starting with Analytics, describe the options and recommendations for distributing management (ONAP etc.) functions.
Problem Statement:
- Management Workloads
- Currently, Multiple Orchestrators for Management Workloads (SDC, SO, OOF etc.)
- ONAP Central Management – OOM
- Analytics Central/Distributed Management – DCAE (ONAP, SP internal, Third Party)
- There is an opportunity to get some alignment across multiple orchestrators which will be greatly beneficial especially in Distributed Edge environment
- Currently, Multiple Orchestrators for Management Workloads (SDC, SO, OOF etc.)
- Managed Workloads
- Fully Support for containerized network functions (work in progress)
- Support for non-network functions (VM and Container based), e.g. vProbe, Automation Apps
Solution Direction:
- Leverage existing capabilities, and select what; or motivate new approaches
- Management Workload:
- Align on a single orchestrator solution for all management workloads
- Managed Workload:
- Enhance SDC, SO, A&AI, MC etc. to support containerized functions
- Leverage ONAP for deploying and managing non-network functions
- Longer-term:
- Explore feasibility for orchestration alignment between managed workload and management workload
- Cloud-Native-foundation:
- Leverage K8S (Operators, Custom Resource Definitions etc.) for Distributed Systems Management
- Image management – at scale rolling upgrade
Policy/Configuration change – notify only deltas
- Leverage Istio Service Mesh (Distributed Tracing etc.) for Component Performance Management
- Leverage K8S (Operators, Custom Resource Definitions etc.) for Distributed Systems Management
Distributed Management application Requirements / Considerations
| Requirement Item | Priority | Added by | Modified by and modification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ability to deploy ONAP management applications in selected cloud regions that are owned by ONAP operator | Srinivasa Addepalli | ||
Ability to deploy ONAP management applications in selected cloud regions that are not owned by ONAP operator, but has business relationship (Examples: Public Clouds or Edge Clouds owned by some other organization) | Srinivasa Addepalli | ||
| Ability to apply common configuration (Day0 configuration) of ONAP components at the time of deployment | |||
| Support for various Day0 configuration profiles | |||
| Support for Day 2 configuration of single or multiple instances of ONAP components in various cloud regions | Srinivasa Addepalli | ||
| Secure connectivity between central ONAP and ONAP management applications in cloud regions | |||
| Support for various connectivity protocols (Kafka, HTTP 1.1, 2.0, GRPC etc...) between ONAP-Central and ONAP components in cloud regions | |||
| Monitoring and visualization of ONAP components of cloud-regions along with ONAP components at the ONAP-Central | |||
| Scale-out of ONAP components at the cloud-regions & traffic (transaction) distribution | |||
| Ability to upgrade ONAP components without loss of functionality | |||
| High availability of ONAP component in the cloud regions | |||
| Support for third party management applications that provide similar functionality as ONAP management applications (Modularity) |
Assumptions
| Item | Added by | Modified by | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ONAP Management components can only be brought up in cloud-regions that are based on Kubernetes | |||
Architectural Scenarios to consider:
Outcome of Edge Automation Discussions on 01/16/2019:
Deployment Model | Non-ONAP Central | ONAP Central | Edge using ONAP NFV Orchestration/Architecture Near-term Priority | Edge using non-ONAP NFV Orchestration/Architecture Near-term Priority | ||
Edge and Central Provider are same | NA | Yes for all combinations of edge |
| High?
|
| Medium?
|
Edge and Central Providers are different | NA | Yes for all combinations of edge | Use Existing VPCs (VPC creation out of scope for ONAP)
| High?
| Use Existing VPCs (VPC creation out of scope for ONAP)
| Medium?
|
Definition of done:
- This activity is closed when there is a:
- Description of alternative concepts for distributing the ONAP functionality.
- A recommendation for which alternatives to pursue (and when).
Expected Timeframe:
This activity is expected to conclude at/before the start of April, 2019 by the ONAP Architecture meeting at ONS.
Input Requirements:
- DCAE Platform Requirements: https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/28379482/DCAE%20Platform%20Requirements.pptx?api=v2
Definitions:
Architectural Options:
Conclusion:
Other Deliverables:
LF blog and Architecture white paper during ONS time frame.