Page Comparison

...

The following diagram depicts Oslo ONAP Component Architecture:

ONAP Core Components

ONAP Core Component Interfaces and Relationships

...

• Portal-NG : is a GUI platform provides the ability to integrate different ONAP GUIs

• Use-Case UI (UUI) : provides the capability to instantiate the blueprint Use Cases and visualize the state. It also provides intent-based network management, leveraging genAI/ML

• SDC : provides a design time tool for common model/catalog onboarding design and distribution

• Policy Framework : provides the ability for the creation and management of policies. Its CLAMP (Closed Loop Automation Management Platform) provides the run-time control loop management

• SO : Service Orchestrator and its modular sub-components provide the service orchestration, network service, network slicing and VFN/CNF/PNF in the ONAP architecture

• AAI : provides real-time views of Resources and Services and their relationships. It also provides services to register externally used services

• CPS : provides storage for real-time configuration and operational parameters

• DCAE : provides the capability to collect events, and host analytics applications (supporting VES events)

• Multi-VIM/Cloud : provides mediation capabilities to connect to different infrastructure providers (including K8s plugin for CNF)

• CDS : is a framework to automate resource resolution for instantiation and configuration (Day 0, Day 1, Day 2)

• CCSDK : provides a common set of reusable code that can be used across multiple controllers (for building/plug-in controller personas)

• SDNC : provides a network controller capability for establishing network connections and configuring VNFs/CNFs. It is based on CCSDK

ONAP Core Component Interface Abstraction

• ONAP component interfaces should be designed/used for/by not only ONAP but also non-ONAP.

• ONAP component functions can be substituted and/or extended by vendors/operators

• Component dependencies and couplings to other ONAP components should be removed.

• Those dependencies and couplings could be both syntactic and semantic

• Intra-ONAP component interfaces and communications should not be ONAP-specific.

• Aligning with standards where possible (e.g., ETSI NFV MANO, ASD, 3GPP SA5…) should be global requirements

• If there must be a deviation, that can be done in an extensible way that enables the standard-based approach

• The exposed service interfaces should be for both ONAP and non-ONAP; promote ONAP component interfaces as LFN de facto standards

• If exposed service interfaces conform to industry standards (e.g., ETSI SOL005, ETSI SOL003, 3GPP SA5), the interactions between the service provider and consumer would be simplified (e.g., VFC case in this diagram)

• For now, the service consumers can use “adapters” which choose a desired service interface

• Action Points:

  • Promote ONAP Component API models and interfaces as open-source de facto APIs

  • Event Handler / operator façade can be used trigger ONAP components as the previous slide

ONAP Shared Services

• Security Framework : provides security capabilities for external and inter-component secure communications, authentication and authorization

• Logging Framework (PoC) : provides general-purpose logging collection/aggregation/persistence/visualization, by leveraging open-source log collector, aggregator, database and visualizer (e.g., FluentBit, FluentD, ElasticSearch, Kibana)

...