Versions Compared

Key

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

...


ARCH WORK

DISCUSSION

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. SON & Slicing depend on this project (scope)

#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  

  1. (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





...

RecordingFile
Zoom

View file
namezoom_0.mp4
height250

Audio Only

View file
nameaudio_only.m4a
height250

Chat

View file
nameplayback.m3u
height250
View file
namechat.txt
height250

Action items

  •