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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 47 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.

Meeting recordings and (some) notes are below.

 

ONAP L1 Carrier Interconnect-20200108 1307-1

 

Wednesday, January 8, 2020  |  7:07 am  |  Central Standard Time (Chicago, GMT-06:00)

Duration: 21 min 18 sec

Recording password: xGg88sgm

Play recording

 

ONAP L1 Carrier Interconnect-20191218 1305-1

Wednesday, December 18, 2019  |  7:05 am  |  Central Standard Time (Chicago, GMT-06:00)

Duration: 1 hr 5 min 28 sec

Recording password: Kva5pnyJ

Play recording

 

ONAP L1 Carrier Interconnect-20191211 1311-1

Wednesday, December 11, 2019  |  7:11 am  |  Central Standard Time (Chicago, GMT-06:00)

Duration: 46 min 50 sec

Recording password: Xfpe7gc3

Play recording

 

ONAP L1 Carrier Interconnect-20191120 1331-1

Wednesday, November 20, 2019  |  7:31 am  |  Central Standard Time (Chicago, GMT-06:00)

Duration: 26 min 1 sec

Recording password: tMMb52Ms

Play recording

 


 


 

No meeting.

 

No meeting.

 


 

Attendees:

AT&T: Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange: Olivier Augizeau

Fujitsu: Raghavan Subramanian, David Allabaugh, Xin Miao

Notes:

  1. Continued discussion of how best to align with the CCVPN project. Brian agreed to reply to Lin's email and suggest that L1 operate as an autonomous use case that can also be used by CCVPN due to the need to support standalone L1 interconnect services.
  2. Olivier A shared slides describing Orange's proposal for ONAP contributions as part of this use case. Aside from enhancements to TransportPCE to support this use case, Orange expects to update SDN-C, SO, and A&AI (e.g. create DG, WF, models) to support our initial implementation.
    1. Brian suggested that Fujitsu create a similar slide explaining our proposed contributions.

 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange -  Olivier Renais, Olivier Augizeau

Altran - AMMAR ALBETAR

Fujitsu -  David Allabaugh  Raghavan Subramanian , Denise Provencher

Notes: 

  1. Team discussed the invitation from CCVPN to join their project rather than creating a new project. Agreement that there advantages and disadvantages to joining CCVPN. We agreed to talk informally with others who are familiar with or participating in CCVPN. Will continue discussion next week.
  2. Olivier A provided an update on Orange's analysis of work required. They would like to be ready to get started in September. Olivier clarified that they plan to run a separate instance of ODL initially and operate as an external controller. Orange plans to use Open ROADM 2.2.1; will check on T-API version.
    1. Have identified some extensions to the Open ROADM service model
    2. Need to develop an OTN simulator
    3. Integrate TransportPCE ODL enhancement
    4. SO workflows
    5. SDN-C DG

 

No meeting

 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange -  Olivier Renais

Altran - AMMAR ALBETAR

Fujitsu - Raghavan Subramanian , THIRILOSHINI KRISHNAKUMAR, Denise Provencher

Notes:

  1. Brian Freeman  shared results of the 2 July 2019 EUAG meeting. General agreement that the functionality we are proposing is useful. There is some concern about LFN API specifications diverging from SDOs. We need to ensure that our modeling is consistent with MEF & TMF.  Brian also suggested that we get a zoom bridge and post on our wiki so others can join more easily. EUAG meeting minutes can be found here.
  2. Thiriloshini presented the work that Fujitsu has done in the Dublin release. She and her team have on boarded  an optical domain controller and created DGs in SDN-C to retrieve topology inventory for A&AI. This code will be contributed when the optical service creation use case is complete.
    1. Some discussion about the level of abstraction required in A&AI. Consensus that inventory details should be kept in the controller. Olivier suggested that PNFs may simply be modeled as end points. 
    2. Thiriloshini's slides and a video of the demo have been posted on the Dublin demo page.
  3. The team discussed the scope of our first implementation phase. We agreed to begin with optical service creation within a singe carrier and single optical domain. This is the smallest service creation building block required for inter-carrier connections.
    1. Suggestion to include simulators with our solution so that others can easily try it out and/or test modifications.
    2. Martin and Brian Freeman  will discuss the possibility of contributing the SDN-C Open ROADM adapter.
  4. Schedule
    1. We should plan to have a PoC as part of the Frankfurt release. Our development should be non-blocking - no disruption to other teams.
    2. We will need to propose any changes required to other components.
    3. Need to have representation at the Monday Use Case Subcommittee meetings, and the Thursday TSC meetings. Currently Raghavan Subramanian is attending.

 

No meeting


 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Olivier Augizeau, Olivier Renais

Altran - AMMAR ALBETAR

Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, Raghavan Subramanian, THIRILOSHINI KRISHNAKUMAR,  Joe Peters, Denise Provencher

Notes:

  1. EUAG meeting - presentation was deferred due to lack of carrier participation in the meeting; rescheduled for July 2nd (Brian Freeman will present since Olivier Augizeau will be on vacation)
  2. Continued reviewing Dave's optical modeling slides 
    1. MEF has created a TOSCA model for L2 service (55.0.2); can be applied to L1 services based on MEF63
    2. Brian suggested adding a slide to show a layer 2 service on top of the optical service; Dave commented that the adaptation from L2 to L1 is currently missing from MEF
    3. MEF has resource models based on T-API
    4. Brian suggested identifying key fields in the L2 service definition that L0/1 controllers may need to be aware of (e.g. high packet loss triggersre-route or  addition of L0 bandwith)
  3. Team agreed that MEF approach seems reasonable
    1. Need to begin looking at Legato for L1 - service attributes, resource model
    2. SPOC operator will need a view of the entire service, perhaps as an abstracted list of containers
      1. Dave will contact the MEF team informally for more information
    3. Olivier A commented that the service order definition is most urgent; service OAM can be handled later
  4. Raghavan submitted an abstract for ONS Europe based on our project; if selected, Olivier A will participate in presentation
  5. Next meeting
    1. discuss scope of first release (first baby step)


 

Attendees:

AT&T - Martin Birk, Brian Freeman

Orange - Olivier Augizeau, Olivier Renais

Altran - AMMAR ALBETAR

Fujitsu - David Allabaugh, Raghavan Subramanian, THIRILOSHINI KRISHNAKUMAR,  Joe Peters, Denise Provencher

Notes:

  1. The team reviewed Olivier A's update of the EUAG material. Agreed to change our proposal to be a stand-alone use case that is linked to and can be leveraged by CCVPN. Orange will be using the Open ROADM service model but will expose the more abstract T-API network model for A&AI. Other minor edits agreed to for consistency. Olivier re-issued the proposal after the meeting.
  2. Raghavan asked if any team members are planning to attend ONS Europe in September. If so, would anyone like to join him in presenting our ONAP work? Orange expressed interest. Raghavan will draft an abstract for review (network automation track).
  3. Dave shared his slides on MEF APIs and how they might be applied to our project. Slides may be found here.
    1. T-API is the foundation model for MEF APIs
    2. MEF 63 includes L1 subscriber services; to day the L1 ENNI is always OTN, mapped or muxed
  4. Next meeting
    1. feedback from EUAG presentation
    2. Continue review of MEF slides

 

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.


Action Items:


Open Items:

  • Identify the best way to handle notifications (domain controller <> SDN-C, domain controller <> SO)
  • Resolve where interconnect details are specified or negotiated : OSS/BSS or ONAP


  • No labels