Page Comparison

Overview

MEF LSO defines a set of specifications and reference points aimed at providing end to end service orchestration across multiple network domains using standardized APIs. One of the reference points in this set is interlude which focuses on providing control related management interactions between service provider and partner (link). The other inter-provider reference point in LSO is SONATA which mainly focuses on the OSS/BSS level business interactions. As ONAP is not specifically on the SONATA level of interactions, the rest of the document focuses mainly on the interlude reference point in MEF and similar specifications in other standard organizations. While interlude is one of the reference point and specification which addresses inter-provider interaction, it is worthwhile to look at the broader scope considering typical operational, business use cases and aspects impacting such interactions in ONAP External API specifically and ONAP in general. MEF Interlude scope is covered in detail in a separate section.

5GExchange (link) as part of 5GPPP is one of the relevant project worth referring which focuses on "cross-domain orchestration of services over multiple administrations or over multi-domain single administrations" (link). 5GEx project defines a multi-domain logical interworking architecture which covers multi-operator interaction and multi-domain interaction within the same operator. As part of the 5GEx project a detailed study is being conducted around inter-domain and inter-provider interactions and results are published here. The 5GEx proposed system consists of multi-domain orchestrator (MdO), domain orchestrators and interactions between MdO (marked as #2 in the diagram below), the interaction between MdO and Domain orchestrators (marked as #3 in the diagram), the interaction between customer and MdO (marked as #1), interaction between Domain Orchestrators and controllers (marked as #5) and interaction between domain orchestrators (marked as #4). Each of these interactions is identified by different types of interfaces. There is also a classification based on business level interactions, management/orchestration level interaction, control level interactions, and data level interaction. Out of these #2 is the one which close matches the MEF interlude reference point, but the scope is slightly different because in 5GEx project business, management/orchestration related interactions are expected to be handled by the same interface (i.e #2). While #3 (between MdO and DO) is quite relevant in the case of External API, this may be an item for future study as domain orchestration concept is currently under discussion in ONAP Tiger team as of September 2018. For the sake of this document, MdO is functionally mapped to the External API component in ONAP as it is providing an end to end service management capability.

Image Modified

Following diagram captures the interface mapping to standards as defined by 5GEx in their functional model found here

Looking at the picture above, it can be observed that 5GEx mostly follows the ETSI MANO specific interfaces for interactions across MdOs or between MdO and DO. But the picture also includes some additional scope as listed below

• Topology distribution across domains for exchanging network topology details that may be used by MLPCE.
• Multi-domain path computation engine interaction across domains for exchanging path specific data
• SLA Management interaction across domains for exchanging business agreement.
• Service Catalogue interactions across domains for exchanging service specifications

Summarizing the scope in5GExproject, its key focus is in virtualized infrastructure with ETSI MANO building blocks with additional scope for exchanging the network topology, network path, business agreement and service specification across different domains. For ONAP Ext-API this may not be quite relevant as it functionsata layer above the NFVO. However, if External API scope is expanded to have cross-layer interaction, i.e MdO of one operator domain interacting with DO of another operator domain 5GEx specific interfaces may be relevant. But what can be learned from the 5GEx project is the concept of SLA Management, Catalogue exchange, Security mechanisms and approaches for supporting use cases such as Slicing.

The topic of inter-provider/inter-domain interaction is being discussed in TMF ODA, ETSI ZSM, but these specifications are still in the early stages of development and may not be relevant in the near future of ONAP development.

Another specification worth referring is ETSI IFA 028 v3.1.1 - wherein MANO architectural options to support multiple administrative domains is being discussed. This specification introduces two concepts - MLPOC (Multiple Logical Point of Contact) andSLPOC (Single Logical Point of Contact) with varying degrees of cross-layer interaction and information abstraction across domains. This specification also defines an Or-Or interface across NFVOs in different administrative domains. Assescribed in the case of 5GEx, ETSI Or-Or level interaction may not be

Subsequent sections in this page cover a comparison of different SDO/OSSP activities around inter-provider APIs.

Multi-domain Interaction

As defined in 5GEx project multi-domain can be multiple network operators or it can be multiple subdomains within a single operator. The scope of interaction might be slightly different within single operator domains and across multiple operators because the latter will be governed by SLAs with strict policies and predefined trust/contract between the two operators. So security and trust are some of the key criteria for interaction across multiple parties. All interaction should be governed, policy controlled based on the trust agreement. Within the same operator domain, there can be multiple administrative domains which can be governed by SLO/OLOs and trust agreement as in the case of inter-provider interaction. But there can also be a model of distributed deployment which may not fit into the purview of multi-domain interaction. For example, geo-redundancy and HA deployments may not be classified as multi-domain interaction, but governed mostly by policies defined between two software components and interaction over internal APIs.

Federation and Delegation

Similar to multi-domain interaction, federation and delegation are two terminologies used for interaction between two logically separated endpoints. While there is no standard terminology defined at the ONAP level, we can assume federation to be the east-west interaction between systems/components at same logical domains- for example between Orchestrators in two administrative domains, or controller in two administrative domains. The delegation terminology can be associated with the interactions between systems/components at different logical domains- for example, an end to end orchestrator interacting with a domain orchestrator. Federation and Delegation can be classified with reference to the diagram above from 5GEx. Interactions marked 2 can be classified in federation and interaction marked 3 and 5 can be classified as delegation. Here the federation is across domains of different operators, whereas delegation is between the same operator domains. Another differentiator is that federation is between logical domains with similar scope whereas delegation is between logical domains with a different scope. The logical separation can be based on the technology abstraction, geographic abstraction or deployment model. One example of the federation model is the interactions in the CCVPN use case an example of the delegation model is interaction possible between the central site and edge site orchestrators in an edge automation use case.

In the ETSIIFA028there are two models of inter-administrative domain interactions -SLPOC (Single Logical Point of Contact) and MLPOC (Multi Logical Point of Contact). In SLPOC there is a single interaction point between two administrative domains whereas in MLPOC there are multiple interaction points between administrative domains. In simple terms, it is possible based on ETSI MLPOC model for NFVO in one administrative domain to interact with VNFM or VIM in another administrative domain over the ETSI interfaces. Since External API functions at a layer above NFVO, the current scope of interaction is limited to the federation model described above -i.einteraction between External API in two operator domains.

The delegation model support in External API requires further discussion based on specific use cases. There is also discussion around Recursive Orchestration, Orchestration Hierarchy and Domain Orchestration. The delegation model can be considered within the scope of External API once some concrete decision is made by the Architecture team. For the current scope, only the federation model is considered.

Business Agreement and Policy

MEF Interlude does not have a specific scope for managing the Business Agreement between SP and Partner, however, the interaction between the parties might be governed and controlled based on the predefined business agreement and associated policy rules, security mechanism. 5GEx document on Business and Economic Layer (link) elaborates this aspect in detail but limits the focus on the SLA between parties. Some interesting aspects to be considered for Interlude are as follows

• Roles of the parties (SP and Partner) which will determine the mode of communication, specific controls required at either end, Policies to be enforced, the direction of communication (Some examples given for the 5G case are - Infrastructure Service Provider, Network Service Provider, Communication Service Provider, Over the top service provider, Exchange point service provider . The roles defined by 5GEx are mostly inspired by those defined by 3GPP 28.801.
• Centralized vs Distributed Interaction: The interaction between parties can be centralized i.e coordinated by an aggregator provider acting as an exchange point between parties or it can be one to one. The aggregator model is better as it will avoid need for multiple business agreements while ensuring centralized enforcement SLA and policies
• Coordination model: Consists of two phases - publishing phase where information is exchanged between parties on the offered services and service composition phase when the actual customer request for a service is forwarded from one party to other. In the case of Ext-API this will be translated to a query on the other parties Service Catalog and initiation of service Configuration/Control Request
• Agreement Push vs Pull Model: In Push model the Business Agreement and policies are predetermined/agreed before any interaction between parties over the inter-provider API where as in pull model business agreement is dynamically decided based on the customer request and required SLA, monitoring levels.

The 5GEx project defines Business Agreement in terms of SLA and the document referred at the beginning of this section also gives a template for defining SLA. For ONAP Ext-API this may not be useful as it currently does not have any referenceable entities for defining policies for interaction between parties, which is quite relevant at the interlude level.

Other relevant SDO References for adapting Business Agreement are as follows

• TMF B2B2X Partnering Step by Step Guide (link): Lifecycle model for B2B partner management, templates for B2B agreement mostly focused on the business layer, but the operating agreement may be relevant for defining the interlude policies
• Recent ONS presentation on BlockChain based inter-operator agreement implemented based on HyperLedger (link)

For External-API project a new set of APIs needs to be defined for the Business Application layer to push the policies for interacting with the partner. In the absence of this API, it may be assumed that Ext-API will consult the Policy Engine in ONAP for determining the control mechanisms that need to be established before interacting with the partner over the inter-provider API.

Cross-layer Interaction

IN MEF LSO, the interlude reference point is between SOF in Service Provider domain and Partner Domain. If this principle is strictly followed the interaction can be confined to External API level or External API+SO combined. i.e SOF functionality can be assumed to be fulfilled using Ext-API and SO as a unified block. However, in practical deployments, there may be scenarios which might require cross-layer interaction, for example, MLPOC proposed in ETSI IFA028 wherein the Orchestration function in one domain interacts with VIM or VNFM in another domain. The multilayer interaction might also be possible in a hybrid orchestration scenario wherein the Virtualization and Non-Virtualized domains might have to interact at different levels - for example, a MEF LSO compatible system needs to interact with a non-MEF LSO compatible system. One more practical case is the domain orchestration scenario wherein different logical domains interact with each other. This is a wider consideration and decision requiring input from architecture subcommittee and EUAG.

Another aspect of inter-operator cross-layer interaction is cross-layer data reconciliation say at the inventory level or at the assurance level assuming the cross-layer interaction is permissible as per the business agreement and requires for efficiency. But this aspect is outside the scope of the interlude and may be a topic for wider discussions across SDOs.

For the scope of External API in the short term it is assumed that the cross-layer interaction is limited to the interaction between two systems in SP and Partner domains at least one of those is Ext-API component and other one is the entity which is logically equivalent in functionality and having permissible scope and APIs as defined in the MEF interlude specification and compatible with the Agreement between the two parties (SP and Partner)

Design Time Impact

TBD

Connectivity to Partner

TBD (MSB extension, REST API Call, ESR)

S3P Requirements

TBD

Service Impact Assessment

As per the MEF 55 interlude scope of Service Configuration and control, there may be an impact on service if it is already in an Active state. There shall be a need to carry out a service impact assessment before initiating the Service Configuration and Control. This is typically done in operational environments by placing a work order and associated workflows will carry out the impact and corrective rerouting and roll back measure before actually initiating the Service Configuration or Control. This is very specific to the use case and it also depends on whether the service configuration and control is service impacting or not. In the current MEF 55 scope, a dedicated change management is not scoped. However, in the ONAP Ext-API scope this may be one of the prerequisites that need to be initiated before or along with any operation over the inter-provider interface. Generally, in the traditional OSS environments, any request for partner services are initiated through a work order. The need for supporting inter-provider service request through a work order needs to be assessed based on the opinion of EUAG. For Ext-API, it is assumed that the inter-provider API request may be preceded by an optional change management request, or the Service Configuration/Control Request itself may be piggybacked in the change management request.

Standard APIs

MEF Interlude is a reference point which is expected to accommodate many APIs going forward based on the scope defined. Few examples of APIs that may be suitable as per the scope in MEF 55 are as follows

• Service Provider controls aspects of the Service within the Partner domain (on behalf of the Customer) by requesting changes to dynamic parameters as permitted by service policies. - TMF 641 Service Order Management API or TMF 640 Service Configuration and Activation Management API or TMF 655 Change Management API
• Service Provider queries the operational state of the Service - TMF 638 Service Inventory Management API (This may be restricted in some deployment scenarios)
• Service Provider requests change to the administrative state of a service or service component (e.g. Service Interface) - TMF 640 Service Configuration and Activation API or TMF 655 Change Management API
• Service Provider requests update to defaulted service parameters which are allowed to be customized (policy-controlled) - TMF 641 Service Order API or TMF 640 Service Configuration and Activation API or TMF 655 Change Management API
• Service Provider requests the creation of connectivity between two Service Interfaces as permitted by established business arrangement - TMF 641 Service Order API or TMF 640 Service Configuration and Activation API or TMF 655 Change Management API
• Service Provider provider queries the Partner's Service Inventory for services provided by the Partner to the Service Provider. - TMF 638 Service Inventory Management API
• Service Provider receives Service specific event notifications from the Partner - TMF 642 Alarm Management API or TMF 640/641 Service Order API (ServiceOrderChangeNotification)
• Service Provider receives Service specific performance information from the Partner - TMF 628 Performance Management API , TMF 649 Performance Management Threshold API
• Service Provider requests test initiation and receive test results from the Partner. - TMF 653 Service Test Management API
  

List of TMF Open APIs can be found here

TMF Notification Patterns - link

Information/Data Model

There are multiple models found to be relevant for inter-provider API

• MCM aligned E-Line Service Model defined in MEF Interlude Contribution - Access E-Line Service Control Classes - 5th Draft
• Work in progress MEF Services Common Model (link) - Initial Proposal for Work Item
• CFS/RFS being referenced by the TMF 641 (based on SID) (link) - Currently followed by CCVPN use case
• Generic Resource Model as used in TMF 655 Change Management API (link)

The choice of a specific model will depend on the decision of EUAG, TOSCA Task Force in ONAP. From Ext-API point of view it is expected to leverage the CFS/RFS model being referred by the TMF 641 API or the Generic Resource Model used in TMF 655 . In future as Interlude specific model in MEF and MEF Services Common Model matures appropriate mapping can be incorporated to accommodate specific service characteristics to the TMF APIs. In MEF LSO there is also NRM model being used for the Presto interface (derived from ONF). The NRM model is assumed to be out of scope for Ext-API unless there is a cross-layer interaction between SOF in SP domain and ICM in Partner domain is required.

Interlude Scope as per MEF55

Referring to MEF55 document the Interlude reference point is used by Service Orchestration Functionality to request initiation of technical operations or dynamic control behavior associated with a Service with a partner network domain. The dynamic control (Service Control Orchestration) behavior is elaborated in section 8.2.3 of MEF55 as

• Scheduling, assigning and coordinating service control related activities;
• Undertaking necessary tracking of the execution process of service control requests;
• Adding additional information to an existing service control request under execution;
• Modifying information in an existing service control request under execution;
• Modifying the service control request status, and indicating completion of a service control request;
• Canceling a service control request; - Monitoring the jeopardy status of service control requests, and escalating service control requests as necessary;
• Instantiating, when appropriate, an event for the billing system to capture the policy-constrained change.

MEF55 also differentiates Order Fulfillment Orchestration, Service Configuration and Activation, Service Control Orchestration. While Order Fulfillment Orchestration deals with establishing or modifying a service through the ordering process, Service Control permits the service to be dynamically changed within specific bounds described in policies that are established at the time of ordering. After a service is provisioned and established, LSO may enable Service Control to Customers/parties, such as the ability to modify attributes subject to schedule policies and service constraint policies with for example specified ranges of valid values. Service Control relates to capabilities such as turning on or off connections, throttling bandwidth or other QoS characteristics, etc.

So considering the scope in MEF55, Interlude reference point is primarily used for Service Control Orchestration. Here Service Control Orchestration is considered to be an activity enabled after service is being provisioned. So service order management is not defined in the scope of MEF Interlude but expected to be carried over the SONATA interface (Product Order Management) and Legato (Service Order Management, Service Catalog Management).

MEF Interlude Interactions

The interactions factored in the MEF Interlude Reference point are as follows

• Service Provider controls aspects of the Service within the Partner domain (on behalf of the Customer) by requesting changes to dynamic parameters as permitted by service policies.
• Service Provider queries the operational state of the Service.
• Service Provider requests change to the administrative state of a service or service component (e.g. Service Interface)
• Service Provider requests update to defaulted service parameters which are allowed to be customized (policy-controlled)
• Service Provider requests the creation of connectivity between two Service Interfaces as permitted by established business arrangement.
• Service Provider provider queries the Partner's Service Inventory for services provided by the Partner to the Service Provider.
• Service Provider receives Service specific event notifications from the Partner.
• Service Provider receives Service specific performance information from the Partner.
• Service Provider requests test initiation and receive test results from the Partner.

The green one's are interactions currently supported in External API across SP-Partner in the CCVPN use case. In addition to the above-listed capabilities Ext-API also supports following interactions

• Service Provider Queries the Service Catalogue for the offered Services by Partner
• Service Provider places Service Order for a Service offered by Partner

The last two interactions are not specifically scoped as part of Service Control Orchestration in MEF55, but being supported for CCVPN use case in the absence of a SONATA interface at the Business application layer. Additionally, while Interlude scope is limited to Service Configuration and Control, the API used for the interaction across the SP-Partner can be TMF 641 - Service Order Management as this API provides an option to include multiple Service request in a single API call, unlike in TMF 640 wherein each Service request need to be split as separate API invocations. Alternately partner domain Service Configuration and Control can also be initiated through a work order supported through the TMF 655 Change Management API. However work order based change management is not considered to be a real-time process and incurs delay based on the SLAs agreed. For the Service Control requirements, which are mostly real-time in nature, TMF 655 may not be appropriate. The selection of right API will be based on directions by EUAG architecture subcommittee.

As per the guidelines in the document here, interlude should be used for

• Service configuration
• Service activation, de-activation, modification, deletion
• Service testing
• Service assurance

Out of this service configuration scope should include

• Setting Schedule for Configuration
• Configuration of User Interfaces
• Configuration of Connection
• Configuration of Connection End Points
• Configuration of Redundancy

Interlude Related Work Items in MEF

Following documents give details of the current work items being developed as part of MEF Interlude.

Note: To be verified by MEHMET TOY

• Interlude Guidelines: Gives the high-level scope of Interlude
• Access E-Line CIR Change Process Flow: Highlights the interactions between SP and Partner for CIR change for a provisioned e-line service over the interlude reference point leveraging the service configuration.
• Access E-Line Service Information Model: Based on MEF MCM (Mef Core Model), with extensions to be used for elastic service levels and service schedule
• Business Requirements and Use Cases for Access E-Line Service Control
• MEF LSO Interlude Activation API

External API Requirements for supporting Inter-Provider API

Roles / Actors

• • SP A(ONAP deployment)
    • Administrator: Manages lifecycle of Services
    • Operation Engineer: Manages operational tasks like distribution of packages, manage/process work orders
    • Designer: Onboard VNF packages and designs Service Package
    • Tester: Verifies the Service package and approves the package for distribution
  • SP B (assuming anon-ONAP deployment)
    • Administrator: Manages the lifecycle of services
    • OperationEngineer :Manages operational tasks
  • Partner A (assuming an ONAP deployment)
    • same as for ONAP SP
  • Partner B (assuming anonONAP deployment)
    • Administrator: Manages lifecycle of Services
    • OperationEngineer :Manages Operational

Types of Interactions

General Requirements

1. As a Designer in SP A ONAP, I shall be able to design a hybrid service with constituent services that may be realized by SP and Partner, so that I can represent services in an abstract model which may be used by the ONAP runtime environment.
2. As a designer of theSP AONAP I shall be able to represent the policy and security credentials in the partner service abstract model to access the partner API gateway (the equivalent of Ext-API on the partner side) so that unauthorized access to partner domain can be avoided
3. As a designer of SP A ONAP I shall be able to represent the URL of the Partner API gateway in the partner service abstract model so that reachability to partner API gateway can be ensured.
4. As an Operation engineer of SP A ONAP I shall be able to register Partner API gateway on the A&AI Inventory so that reachability information to Partner can be configured on demand
5. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to query onboarded Services in the Partner Service Catalog via the SP A External API exposed REST APIs so that the correct service specification can be verified with the abstract model maintained locally
6. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to query the instantiated services in the Partner Service Inventory via the SP A External API exposed REST APIs so that state, configured service characteristics of the instantiated services can be verified and reconciled with the local inventory.
7. As an administrator ofSPA ONAP I shall be able to place a request for Service Configuration on Partner API gateway via the SP A External API exposed REST APIs with appropriate Service Characteristics associated and as defined in a Service Specification, so that desired end to end service requirement can be fulfilled.
8. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to control and enforce the policies for accessing the Partner API gateway from SP A External API so that I can manage the ongoing operational requirements.
9. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to place a change management request for service offered by the Partner via the SP A External API so that I can ensure the subsequent or constituent partner service impact and mitigation actions can be initiated in advance.
10. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to filter the API requests on SP A External API and as needed and forwarded to Partner API Gateway so that SP A runtime components are not loaded and real time Partner Service state can be realized and reconciled.
11. As an administrator of SP A ONAP I shall be able to schedule a work order via a Change management request through SP A External API, prior to/along with a Service Configuration or Control Request so that I can ensure optimal execution of request based on the desired condition.

Service Configuration and Control Requirements

Requirement mapping to ONAP Components