You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 3
Next »
Please add/remove yourself. Thanks!
See also
Goals
- share information between
- O-RAN-SC Non-RT-RIC
- O-RAN-SC OAM
- O-RAN-SC SMO
- ONAP CCSDK/SDNC/SDN-R
- LFN
Recording
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| 00:00 | Admin | | Next meetings: 2021-04-07: John Keeney 2021-04-14: Martin Skorupski - 2021-04-21: John Keeney 2021-04-28: Martin Skorupski |
| 00:05 | O-RAN-SC | O-RAN-SC PTLs | Status reports: - Non-RT-RIC: John Keeney
- SIM: Alex Stancu
- OAM: Martin Skorupski
- yet another slack #ccsdk-sdnc-features
- Update docker-compose
- to onap-sdnc:2.1.3 (version from Mar26)
- to org.onap.dcaegen2.collectors.ves.vescollector:1.9.0
- to
- next steps
- integration of an identity server
- update ccsdk to ODL silicon - needed for NETCONF-Call-Home/TLS
- creation of a use case specific docker-compose with simulated O-RU-Fronthaul and O-DU-hello-world.yang + ves:pnfRegistration (maybe ves:heartbeat, ves:fault) - header VES:7.2.1
|
| 00:10 | SMO functionality and alignment between ONAP and O-RAN SC | | SMO functionality and alignment between ONAP and O-RAN SC - Swami, John and Martin: slide set was presented
- There was a meeting between ONAP TSC and ONAP ToC.
|
| 00:20 | |
| |
| 00:20 | Scope of this call | | SMO - O-RAN O1 - covered here
- O-RAN A1 - covered here
- O-RAN O2 → How to address it? Waiting for first version of the spec. → O-RAN WG6
|
| 00:35 | "A1 Proxy" | Hieu Nguyen | Proxy between A1-Adatper and Near-RT-RIC |
END
|
|
|
|
| 00:?? | Use Case | | OSC Proposed e2e integration use case: O-RU FH connection recovery- REF/Background:
- Martin Skorupski provided intro
- Alarm when fronthaul connection dies (O-DU - O-RU) (VES to SMO)
- John Keeney If there is a failure both O-DU & O-RU will try reconnect anyway - without this loop? Martin Skorupski Yes.
- @? How does SMO connect to O-RU?
- Martin Skorupski This is a mix of different deployment options (hierarchical vs hybrid, O1 vs M-Plane). Main issue is agreeing models & terminology.
- John Keeney Seems this use case is not real-world useful, especially since recovery will happen automatically anyway, & mix of standards ...
- Martin Skorupski John Keeney Using this use case as longer term motivator for SMO/NONRTRIC/rApp development - independent of usecase
- Topology ??:
- May need a topology service for this use case - John Keeney Will use a simple file/hardcoded for initial versions of this use case.
- Paweł Pawlak Andy Mayer Topology in A&AI, CPS ? John Keeney No - not initially. Plan to keep it simple for this release.
<bridge dropped recording stopped at this point. Most participants reconnected once bridge started again> - Topology ??: (contd)
- John Keeney Lots of options for how this should be done properly in ONAP.
- Swaminathan Seetharaman ONAP usecases already have some plans for this e.g. slicing, oof, etc
- Andy Mayer A model should be agreed in ONAP. Lots of previous discussions in ONAP - e.g. what goes in A&AI and CPS ... but that was a while ago.
- Martin Skorupski SDNR has some topology model too - not standards based.
- @Sven John Keeney Martin Skorupski Lots of issues with different topology models ... and most existing hierarchical models break down in a 5G/CloudRan environment
- Lots of work ... Andy Mayer Martin Skorupski Can create a JIRA in ONAP MODCOM ...
- ... but will keep it simple here for this use case.
- @? Will other O1 usecases be effected? Martin Skorupski i No. O1 functions continue as before.
- Martin Skorupski Please add feedback if any
|
Action items
