Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Benjamin Cheung

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Benjamin Cheung

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...


ARCH WORK

ARCHITECTURE WORKWIKI LINK
ARCHITECTURE FLOWSARCHCOM: InfoFlow - RunTime Config DB Information Flow
COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONARC RunTime DB Component Description - R6 Frankfurt
PROJECT PROPOSALRunTime Config DB Project Proposal (Oct 25 2019)

...

TopicDiscussion

R6

CCSDK-based Solution

Project as part of CCSDK ( Yuriy Malakov  )

  •  ACTION: Sandeep Shah Presentation of new architecture with CCSDK (Yuriy Malakov ). How much bandwidth/capacity does Sandeep Shah have.
  •  ACTION: Development demo & progress (1) ORAN Yang models & data schema not available yet (waiting) & 5G Service Modeling U/C: 3GPP TS28.541/TS28.540. maps to a data structure we want to support. (2) can proceed to Dockerize solution. R4 MariaDB solution. could extend the model. (3) Review work from Ted. waiting for project.
  •  ACTION: Give RC0 status - Sandeep Shah on RC0 status. Set up call with Sandeep Shah
  •  ACTION: Update ReadtheDocs https://git.onap.org/integration/tree/docs - Jira under Integration - invite team for review - invite PTL (Morgan R.) -Gerrit PTL submission +1 from reviewers. committer/Morgan +2 (someone in Integration project will do the Merge)

R7

Project Proposal

RunTime Config DB Project Proposal (Oct 25 2019)

  •  ACTION: PERFORMANCE - Open (#@#) open items to get ballpark figures for # API requests.
  •  ACTION: LIFECYCLE - find out the Lifecycle State "enumerations" - is "incubation" right?
  •  ACTION: TSC Step #2 - Ben sent the TSC asking for slot. TSC. M4. RC0 bumped by a week. Q1 Who will be contributors. Joanne → Catherine.
  •  ACTION: Virtual Meeting - What is our deadline? April 21-23. Subcommittee meeting (LA USA). planning virtual plannig / presentations. M0 wiki: https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2020+April+Virtual+Technical+Event
  •  ACTION: Peer Review Process Step #1 - ONAP Projects ... Ready for PEER REVIEW? What is involved in that? What's the process? submit to the TSC? Ask Kenny what is PEER REVIEW? Presentation to ARCH S/C
  •  ACTION: ID PTL/Contributors - who will be contributors, who wants to be the PTL. Resources & Committers from Ericsson (Tony Finnerty), AT&T, IBM (Sandeep) commitment in R7.

R7

Separate

Component

  •  ACTION: Find PTL who wants to lead the RTCfgDB Project as independent component.

Email from Dan Timoney  

My understanding from Sandeep was that this work was very much a stretch for Frankfurt.  So, I’m okay with work starting in Frankfurt, as long as its structured so that it’s a separable component (i.e. as long as, if it’s not completed in Frankfurt, the platform is not fundamentally broken). I would NOT support creating a separate repository, since there is a fair amount of overhead involved in maintaining each repository on an ongoing basis – both machine and human resources.  The Linux Foundation itself has been pushing back on the number of repositories the ONAP projects have and there is now a new approval process needed in order to add new ones.  If a new repository is needed, then this team will need to convince me why no existing repository can be used AND will need to provide a resource who is willing to maintain that repository (i.e dealing with security vulnerabilities; policing code coverage ; doing release builds, etc).

R7 Guilin

Content / requirements

Requests for R7 Requirements are up.

Guilin release - functional requirements proposed list

Timeline -  Sign-off for R6 is May 7. Historically M0 kickoff for R7 is May 7th

PROPOSALS FOR R7 GUILIN FOR WHAT WE PLAN TO BE DOING IN R7:

  1. R7 Project Proposal (identify PTL, Project proposal, setup repo)
  2. =STEP 0= (Design time), (Setup DB) Yang Model development ORAN specification Yang Model in line with 3GPP. SQL structure.
  3. =STEP 0= Schema design/setup & API
  4. =STEP 1= CMnotify generated by RanSIM extended (final standard format).
  5. =STEP 1= VES generation, Nokia Simulate DU → simulate VES CMNotify message.
  6. =STEP 1-6= CMNotify (Nokia) Integration Step 2,3,4 with SON work Step 1,5,6
  7. =STEP 5/6= Mapping CMnotify contents into DB
  8. =STEP 5a= New Development for Independent component to get VES off of DMaaP
  9. =STEP 6= API Updates
  10. =STEP 6= Interface to RTCDB (writing DB from SDN-R or RCDB-stand-alone-component)

SUMMARY OF THE STEPS FOR RTCDB "HOW IT OPERATES" (Reference):

  • STEP 0: Design time, Setup DB schema & API (Onboarding).
  • STEP 1: xNF (RAN Simulator) GENERATES a VES CMNotify - Wipro SON (R6 Done)
  • STEP 1a: Simulator of VES CMNotify/"Standardsdefined/CM" (Nokia) (R7)
  • STEP 2: DCAE VES Collector RECEIVES the CMNotify (VES) - Nokia (R7)
  • STEP 3: DCAE PROCESSES VES Event- Nokia (R7)
  • STEP 4: DCAE PUBLISHES onto DMaaP - Nokia (R7)
  • STEP 5: CCSDK (Controller) LISTENS to DMaaP - Sandeep Shah  (R6 Done) → (R7)
  • STEP 5a: RTCDB (stand-alone component) LISTENS to DMaaP (R7 new)
  • STEP 6: RTCfgDB UPDATES DB with info - Sandeep Shah / Techmahindra (R6 Done) → (R7)

A&AI FLOWS:

STEP 1...6: Initial A&AI setup of DB (the setup of the DB with the initial set of all xNFs a "getall")

STEP 1...6: A&AI Update (e.g. a new xNF is added or deleted)

Renaming the Project

RENAMING THE PROJECT ("Service" vs "Database")

Database

#1 HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE - The original idea was a configuration database available at Runtime. Use cases to store. Historical been with the project since the beginning. Name Inertia. Operators will use. Historical precedence within AT&T.

#2 Contents that it holds - Contents is configuration parameters from the network. Name reflects the initial content of database.

Service

Since working on project proposal, it has grown, the same argument works against use.

#1 QUALIFIERS - A wide variety of qualifiers could be put there and it still won't cover. Would move to something more abstract. Abose and beyond a standard IT database. For example service information, policy information, CLAMP information, exo-inventory (information outside of A&AI), topology information, application information - it is conceivable that many other types of information could before. Config if someone wants to add additional information a place to hold information. e.g. in Bell Canada's case they store more than just configuration, the Operational Data & Current state of network. Collectors that gather metrics in VES consumed put in stateDB stateDB. Tied to inventory objects in A&AI self-link from A&AI want to know about interface PNF trying to keep two together, the configuration & the metrics representative what is currently happening in the network. state of I/F being up-down that's more of a state vs a configuration. OpenDaylight Operational data store. Scalability. Collectors & StateDB is yang-driven if collector follows yang-model data store can hold-values. Monitoring interface track as state.

#2 Confederation of Databases - Core/Edge/Far Edge - Historical DB - current DB

#3 MEANS VS ENDS - Database is a "means" technology not an "end" goal

An engine, hubcap is a part of a automobile that provides a service: vehicular motion. A database is a specific technology and implementation.

Requirements around for current data & historical (temporal) careful not to talk about the technology. Potentially more than one database.

Data Persistency Service → "functional" Data Layer Service/ Zu Tony Ben

Configuration & Persistency Service / Joanne Tony Ben

Operational Persistency Service / Bruno Tony Ben

Run-Time Configuration DataBase → "technology"

State (of Network) Database → what is state of network (storing more than just config)

Configuration Operations Database (C.Op.DB) / Swami

Golden Configuration Database / Fred

(RunTime)(Operational)(Persistency) Policy Topology State Network Configuration Service Exo-Inventory Database

R7 GuiLin Development

CMNotify specification

  •  (Watch for): R6 VES 7.1.1 Baselined https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/vnfrqts/requirements/+/100876  (VES Event Reg review) and https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/vnfrqts/requirements/+/100867 (VES Event Listener review)
    R7 VES 7.2 review open new updates to the VES listener should include CM VES event. Participate review.
  •  ACTION: R7 VES Common Header update to align with 3GPP SA5 (CR) Nokia/ ATT/ Orange/ Ericsson. Presentation for Monday 2PM UTC on Alla's Req S/C call. "ONAP-ORAN Harmonization". Vimal, Marge, Cormac, Damian. Domain "Standards-Defined" NameSpace "3GPP-CM-xxxx"

Comment made on  

(CLOSED) Vendor/SP may have an independent database (outside of ONAP) that they may wish to "sync
  • "
up with the RTCDB. Data in that independent DB maybe overlapping information. Store directly data inside of one data-lake already used by the SP. SP already has an existing Data lake → use that instead of RTCDB. UPDATE: The proj. proposal does (1) have a section on synchronization (2) facade I/F

Alessandro D'Alessandro

SUPPORTING FILES

DescriptionFile





RECORDING

heightAudio Only

250
RecordingFile
Zoom
View file
namezoom_0.mp4


250

View file
nameaudio_only.m4a
height250


Chat
View file
nameplayback.m3u
height


Action items

  •