You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 31 Next »

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:


Open Items:

  • Identify the best way to handle notifications (domain controller <> SDN-C, domain controller <> SO)



 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Eric Debeau , Olivier Augizeau , Olivier Renais

Fujitsu - Dwayne Reeves, Denise Provencher   David Allabaugh ,  Raghavan Subramanian  

Notes:

  1. Oliver R recapped the Orange proposal that he shared last week:
    1. “Option 2” with macro routing at the BSS layer
    2. Use of CDS may not makes sense for TransportPCE
    3. Use of T-API connector northbound of controller
  2. Oliver R reviewed the Orange Service Instantiation slide
    1. Suggest not using OOF in the initial phase (reduce complexity)
    2. Dave pointed out that we may lose the ability to optimize across SP domains by requiring the BSS to provide interconnect points; inter-SP optimization assumed to be an aspirational goal, not in first phase
    3. SO polls for service status update – discussion about how long to wait and whether we should use DMaaP to send a notification.
    4. OPEN ITEM – determine best way to handle notifications (1) from domain controller to SDN-C, and (2) from domain controller to SO
    5. We may want to simplify the OTN requirement, e.g. use a muxponder rather than an OTN switch/switchponder
  3. Oliver A compared proposed Option 2 to the MEF model
    1. Reference: MEF 3.0, LSO reference architecture
    2. Customer Single Point of Contact (SPOC) is at the BSS level in the MEF model
    3. Service decomposition is done by the MEF Business Applications (BSS). A service between Paris and Dallas will be decomposed into requests (via Legato) for connections Paris <> NYC and NYC <> Dallas. Orchestrator is not aware of E2E service?
    4. Interlude may be used between ONAP instances to make service modifications that do not affect billing
      1. Could be used to negotiate interconnect details such as trib assignments; perhaps could be used for optimization in the future
    5. Demo suggestion: MEF BA becomes a python script that calls the Legato API; use Interlude between ONAP instances for meet me point details
  4. Action items
    1. Review EUAG slides that Denise distributed
    2. Gather more detail on Legato and Interlude
  5. Next meeting June 12th to review EUAG slides (some folks will be at ONAP F2F)

 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Eric Debeau , Olivier Augizeau , Olivier Renais

Fujitsu - ravi rao , Denise Provencher   David Allabaugh ,  Raghavan Subramanian  

Notes:

  1. Briefly discussed new EUAG template for proposals. We may be the first to use it; OK to add supplementary information. Denise to draft first version of project slide for the team to review.
  2. Olivier R reviewed Orange's view of the use case from a TransportPCE perspective. Slides have been distributed to the team.
    1. "Macro routing" is typically handled at the BSS level and requires access to global topology. Proposal is to have macro routing done at the BSS level and assume that service provider interconnect points are passed from the BSS to ONAP (slide 2, option 2).
    2. BSS could query ONAP for topology - check to see if already supported by Legato. Ludovic Robertmay know
    3. We should see if we can resuce anything from the MEF 2017 demo
    4. Not convinced that CDS is required for TransportPCE - complexity not worth the benefit
    5. T-API view of topology (abstracted) sufficient for A&AI. No need to expose Open ROADM network model
    6. Discussion of notification mechanisms: controller publishes event to DMaap? use CDS hooks for notifications? REST?
  3. Next meeting - continue to review Orange proposal; discuss best mechanism for notifications

 

Attendees:

AT&T -  Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Oliver Renais

Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, ravi rao, Raghavan Subramanian, Denise Provencher, Dwayne Reeves, Joe Peters

Notes:

  1. Discussed feedback from use case subcommittee that L1 interconnects should be a sub-use case of CCVPN, citing 5G as an example. Team agreed that L1 should be a stand-alone use case and should be suitable as an underlay for other services. The existing CCVPN model does nor fully represent an L0/L1 service interconnect. Brian will discuss with Alla.
  2. Need a small number of slides for EUAG: what is the problem, what is the proposed solution, what are the use cases. Olivier A will present. Denise will send a few applicable slides to be used as raw material (subsequently, Olivier A shared a new template for EUAG proposals).
  3. Briefly discussed timeline for Frankfurt and work that we can begin now. Ravi mentioned a new process for developing blueprints. We should start this sooner rather than later. Olivier R mentioned that Orange is not convinced that CDS is required in the solution. Orange will share their thinking on the next call. Fujitsu will share the results of their whiteboard session.
  4. Development environment discussion. Fujitsu will develop a proposal for a lab configuration.
    1. Need equipment emulators in order to test higher level functions and APIS
    2. May need enhancements to TransportPCE and ODL to support OTN. Guillame is the PTL for TransportPCE.
    3. Brian suggested that we can use the ONAP instance in AT&T's lab



 

Attendees:

AT&T -  Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Oliver Renais

Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, ravi rao, Raghavan Subramanian, Denise Provencher, Deepak Patel

Notes:

  1. 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.
  2. The team reviewed the draft business requirements draft and  agreed upon some edits. The updated slides have been posted to the wiki; changes are in red. Ravi will bring them to the use case subcommittee.
  3. Brian pointed out that we also need to identify the impact to other components & understand where we need help.
  4. 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...
  5. 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:

  1. Agenda
  2. Olivier A reviewed requirements for interconnect services based on discussion with the marketing and inter-carrier groups at Orange
    1. 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.
    2. Discussed whether #2 and #3 are effectively the same use case. For Orange, they are the same.
    3. Subsea cables are often managed by consortiums and access typically requires lengthy negotiation.
    4. 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)
    5. 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?
    6. General agreement that this is a complex problem and that we need to identify a small but valuable first step.
  3. 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.
  4. Discussion of scope for this project:
    1. Part of what we need to do is model L0/L1 services in ONAP
    2. MEF interconnect model could be used as the basis of our work
    3. Consider swim lanes of effort:
      1. Modelling
      2. KPIs – what is needed, how should they be collected?
      3. Controller(s) for L0/L1 – functions required, APIs, where in the architecture?
  5. Next meeting –  , same time as May 9 meeting
  6. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Ravi shared his updated slides. There is general agreement to split the workflow into phases and separate onboarding from service design and instantiation.
    1. Onboarding
      1. “Onboarding” terminology slightly confusing when applied to topology discovery; you are actually onboarding the assets of the controllers.
      2. 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)
      3. At design-time, artifacts required to define an external controller to discover pertinent parts of the domains (end-points, network models etc.)
      4. Current flows not very aligned with what ONAP uses (Orange concern about using CDS everywhere)
      5. Can we leverage anything from CCVPN discovery? CCVPN currently does not support discovery of a domain controller, but may have a useful model.
      6. 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?
      7. We might want to set up infrastructure manually in the first release
    2. Service Design and Instantiation
      1. Service definition of optical using the same definition that ONAP information model
      2. 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
      3. How is the service request decomposed? Who decides little “a” and little “z” (the ENNI)? OOF?
      4. Should we use SNIRO emulator (running in Docker containers) for managing homing/allocation in service instantiation flows (OOF reference)?
      5. Will there be a serviceability check in an upper layer system, so that we know that big “Z” is outside of SP1’s domain?
      6. Inter-domain path computation SW piece is missing (which inter-connects area available & will we used)
      7. How will the service request from BSS systems look?
        1. 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]
        2. or will BSS send E2E service request & SO will identify & decompose end-points across SP partner domains
      8. We need to incorporate E2E business constraints into the service definitions - global availability, latency, geographical constraints, automatic restoration
      9. Scope of use-case is very simple right now, but more complex scenarios as probable. We can likely start off small.
      10. Need to check Interlude work – they may have addressed this
  3. Preparation for End User Advisory Group meeting in May
    1. 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.


  • No labels