Meetings are held by WebEx every Wednesday at 5:00 AM PT, 7:00 AM CT, 8:00 AM ET, 2:00 PM CET
Please contact Denise Provencher for the recurring meeting invitation.
Action Items:
- Update the flows based on discussion (ravi rao)
- Document high level L1 interconnect business requirements (Olivier Augizeau )
- Update wiki to include names of participants
- Setup child page with meeting minutes (Raghavan Subramanian)
- Check the MEF Interlude work to see whether/what service constraints are supported (David Allabaugh???)
- Include Ludovic Robert (from Orange) to the next meeting (Denise Provencher)
- Check on EUAG meeting schedule – Brian to discuss with Olivier/Eric (Brian Freeman)
- Review business requirement slides; send comments to Denise (Brian Freeman, Olivier Augizeau, Martin Birk, Olivier Renais, Eric Debeau, Ludovic Robert, Matthieu Geerebaert)
- Need to determine where to host demo; can we demonstrate a 100G/OTU4 ENNI?
- Bring agreed-upon business requirements to Use Case Subcommitte (ravi rao)
- Identify impact to ONAP components - where we need help (ravi rao to lead; contributions from Brian Freeman , Olivier Augizeau , Eric Debeau . Raghavan Subramanian)
- Develop presentation for EUAG
Attendees:
AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman
Orange - Oliver Renais
Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, ravi rao, Raghavan Subramanian, Denise Provencher, Deepak Patel
Notes:
- Olivier R raised a question about whether or not we have the capability to show a 100G/OTU4 ENNI in the lab. If not, we will use a 10G/OTU2 ENNI and a 1GE service (similar to MEF demo). It was also noted that we can use simulators for most of the development.
- The team reviewed the draft business requirements draft and agreed upon some edits. The updated sides have been posted to the wiki; changes are in red. Ravi will bring them to the use case subcommittee.
- Brian pointed out that we also need to identify the impact to other components & understand where we need help.
- Briefly discussed the June EUAG. We have some time to prepare material. Agreement that we want the L0/L1 use case to stand alone (services offered at those layers) but also support other use cases/services - CCVPN, 5G network slicing...
- Team reviewed latest use case slides from Ravi. He has discussed this material with the CDS team. They are working on an alternative to the DG plug-in.
- slide 3 - do we need DMaaP to get topology notifications? Perhaps a DMaaP > REST notification to ensure reliable delivery.
- slide 7 - break into 3 slides: design time; partner on-boarding; and run time (customer order)
- simplest case is to have one controller domain in each service provider; we might want to start with that.
Attendees:
AT&T - Brian Freeman
Orange - Olivier Augizeau, Ludovic Robert, Matthieu Geerebaert, Oliver Renais
Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, ravi rao, Raghavan Subramanian, Denise Provencher, Deepak Patel
Notes:
- Agenda
- Olivier A reviewed requirements for interconnect services based on discussion with the marketing and inter-carrier groups at Orange
- Reviewed three cases for cross-domain connections: (1) domain = vendor, and interconnection is required between vendor domains within a carrier; (2) domain = network managed by an operational unit with its own ONAP instance; and (3) domain = telco.
- Discussed whether #2 and #3 are effectively the same use case. For Orange, they are the same.
- Subsea cables are often managed by consortiums and access typically requires lengthy negotiation.
- Requirements include the need to monitor that the original service constraints are still being met (for instance, latency or sovereignty after a failure that causes a re-route)
- Need to link L0/L1 to the IP layer. Need a strategy for managing across layers, especially in failure cases. Can you dynamically create new L0 links (e.g. between routers) when there is an IP backbone failure, using an automated patch panel?
- General agreement that this is a complex problem and that we need to identify a small but valuable first step.
- Dave shared his understanding of MEF Interlude support for service provider interconnect. Interlude seems to assume that the BSS layer is handling selection of the interconnect point.
- Discussion of scope for this project:
- Part of what we need to do is model L0/L1 services in ONAP
- MEF interconnect model could be used as the basis of our work
- Consider swim lanes of effort:
- Modelling
- KPIs – what is needed, how should they be collected?
- Controller(s) for L0/L1 – functions required, APIs, where in the architecture?
- Next meeting – , same time as May 9 meeting
- Action – all to review the business requirements slides for presentation to the use case subcommittee; be prepared to review on the 16th
Attendees:
AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman
Orange - Eric Debeau Olivier Augizeau , Olivier Renais
Fujitsu - ravi raoDenise Provencher David Allabaugh Raghavan Subramanian , Dwayne Reeves, Deepak Patel
Notes:
- Raghavan shared the child page he created for project artifacts. He will add a child page for meeting notes (this page) and list the names of project members.
- Ravi shared his updated slides. There is general agreement to split the workflow into phases and separate onboarding from service design and instantiation.
- Onboarding
- “Onboarding” terminology slightly confusing when applied to topology discovery; you are actually onboarding the assets of the controllers.
- Agreement to split onboarding step into (1) controller onboarding (configure IP address, API to use, etc.), and (2) asset/topology discovery (infrastructure prep for service order)
- At design-time, artifacts required to define an external controller to discover pertinent parts of the domains (end-points, network models etc.)
- Current flows not very aligned with what ONAP uses (Orange concern about using CDS everywhere)
- Can we leverage anything from CCVPN discovery? CCVPN currently does not support discovery of a domain controller, but may have a useful model.
- SDN domain controllers support tens of thousands of assets so should we be treating/modelling it as a PNF? Does model break down sue to assumptions about scale of individual PNFs?
- We might want to set up infrastructure manually in the first release
- Service Design and Instantiation
- Service definition of optical using the same definition that ONAP information model
- The model defined at design-time is distributed by SDC via DMAP to SO, SDN-C, A&AI, Policy, CLAMP etc., each of which store locally for use in run-time
- How is the service request decomposed? Who decides little “a” and little “z” (the ENNI)? OOF?
- Should we use SNIRO emulator (running in Docker containers) for managing homing/allocation in service instantiation flows (OOF reference)?
- Will there be a serviceability check in an upper layer system, so that we know that big “Z” is outside of SP1’s domain?
- Inter-domain path computation SW piece is missing (which inter-connects area available & will we used)
- How will the service request from BSS systems look?
- will it be the decomposed service request b/w end-points within the one ONAP SP instance (A > a and z > Z for example) [Likely option]
- or will BSS send E2E service request & SO will identify & decompose end-points across SP partner domains
- We need to incorporate E2E business constraints into the service definitions - global availability, latency, geographical constraints, automatic restoration
- Scope of use-case is very simple right now, but more complex scenarios as probable. We can likely start off small.
- Need to check Interlude work – they may have addressed this
- Onboarding
- Preparation for End User Advisory Group meeting in May
- Brian/Olivier/Eric will facilitate getting a spot on the agenda
Attendees:
AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman
Orange - Olivier Augizeau , Olivier Renais
Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, ravi rao, Raghavan Subramanian, Denise Provencher
Notes:
- Scope of L1 interconnect use case does not include business negotiations (e.g. pricing).These functions should occur at a higher layer. However, we need to ensure that APIs support all business requirements. For example, price/cost may affect path computation.
- Reviewed and commented on use case proposal & flow. Discussion regarding use of CDS; Brian noted that there is a learning curve.
- Domains within a carrier: AT&T would probably use manual links between domains. Orange would have separate ONAP instances for each country plus international network; could use L1 interconnect between countries.
- Agreement that use case supports a business need to automate L1 interconnects. Olivier A volunteered to document business requirements.
- Need a place for artifacts. Suggestion to create a child page in wiki.onap.org.
- Target Frankfurt release (since El Alto focused on stability). Need to get this on Alla Goldner’s use case list. Suggestion to present use case at User Advisory Group at the end of May.