| Date | Agenda | Notes |
|---|
| Apr 06, 2018 | - Permanent time for meetings: Mondays 9am est is proposed by multi parties
- Review the Edge scoping doc/updates
- Review the list of docs submitted
- Open discussion for follow up topics with priorities
- Clarify where/what is Edge (tentatively, a gold star has been awarded to one :-)..but, could be awarded to more!)
- ONAP specific aspects/scoping doc addressed this?
| ZOOM Recording: GMT20180406-170638_Ramki-Kris_1920x1080.mp4 Meeting Notes: - Meeting time consensus - 8:00am PT. Ramki to reach out to OOF team to change the time of OOF meetings.
- Cagatay reviewed Edge Scoping-r3.docx.
- Discuss where is "Edge" and relevant applications for with a app response time context
- Gil Bullard brought up relevance to ONAP context, i.e. ONAP services to external party vs ONAP Multi-VIM driven management/optimization. Federated ONAP operations may be relevant here.
- The consensus is to discuss this after we agree on the use case scope.
- Alex Vul brought up the distinctions between user equipment vs customer premise equipment in mobile node like a car in the context where "Edge" might be.
- The demarcation between network provider and end user is left up to service provider. In the case of a car example, the demarc is the Mobile SIM (4G/5G etc.).
- Ramki Krishnan brought up architecture vs use case distinction in the Applications and time scales section.
- The consensus was to move architecture details to a separate section.
- Ramki Krishnan brought up need for additional examples other than RAN for item 2) "Near-real-time Apps" in the Applications and time scales section.
- The consensus for the team to provide input.
- Created child page Edge Architecture & Work Items with some updated text.
- Team to review and provide comments.
Agenda to be finalized 24 hrs. before each meeting. Folks are requested to review the contributions and come prepared with questions. |
| Apr 09, 2018 | - Housekeeping:
- use case sub committee list subscription for addressing email distribution issues –
use case sub committee link (https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-usecasesub) - target dates for input to use case/architecture sub-committee from a Casablanca perspective
- Any additional contributions to discuss from the contributions section?
- Make progress on Edge Scope - child page.
| ZOOM Recording: zoom_0.mp4 Meeting Notes: - Housekeeping
- Informed the team through email
- Target Dates:
- April 30th for Use Case sub committee update about functional requirements for Casablanca and beyond
- May 15th for Architecture sub committee update about any changes to the functional/reference architecture for Casablanca and beyond
- Contributions:
- Distinction between Akraino and this work - question from Margaret Chiosi
- Akraino is an integration project using an opinionated edge stack based on certain open source components.
- This effort in ONAP would treat Akraino as another type of edge cloud and managed though ONAP Multi Cloud and other ONAP relevant components.
- Edge Architecture & Work Items discussion
- Priorities for Casablanca – initial thoughts captured in the Edge Architecture & Work Items wiki
- Need to differentiate between 3rd party and operator provided applications – differentiate along real-time and non-real-time and application characteristics – input from Vimal
- MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf was briefly mentioned by Vimal Begwani as an example of a 3rd party edge app (e.g. pothole fixer app) including relevant MEC APIs; Follow up action: Request Prakash Ramchandran to present work in one of the call.
- Edge_ONAP_WG_v4.pdf (updated deck) from Srinivasa Addepalli
- Edge Deployment/Functional Architecture diagram (slide nos. 7,8, 9) provide initial context for this work. (what diagram to add in Edge Architecture & Work Items wiki?)
- For scalability, there was a discussion about child ONAP with a subset of ONAP components.
- Edge Requirements - initial thoughts in slides 4, 5 - Vimal Begwani, buyukkoc to review and expand.
|
| Apr 16, 2018 | - Differentiate between 3rd party and operator provided applications – input from Vimal Begwani
- Differentiate along real-time and non-real-time and application characteristics – input from Vimal Begwani
- Edge Requirements - input from Vimal Begwani & buyukkoc
- Complete discussion Edge_ONAP_WG_v4.pdf for Edge Architecture - Srinivasa Addepalli
| Zoom Recording: zoom_0.mp4 Meeting Notes: What diagram to add in Edge Architecture & Work Items wiki? - item 2.C.I from last session - see gliffy diagram in Edge Architecture & Work Items page 1 and 2: Vimal provided review of table in Edge Architecture & Work Items page for application classification. 3: updated gliffy diagram to reflect input from Vimal's diagram 4: Clarified demarcation between Cloud Provider and ONAP offload in slides. Also, suggested we use gliffy in wiki as one diagram to work on.
|
| Apr 23, 2018 | Review updated Gliffy Arch diagram and Notes below gliffy (also, need to update gliffy with apps locations) Review Infrastructure Profile descriptions from Srinivasa Addepalli and Vimal Begwani TBD - Review of MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf by Prakash Ramchandran | 1) Reviewed gliffy, notes below gliffy, and, applications table - Shekar Sundaramurthy: for minimum viable - could let it be decided at run time via OOF
- Yoav Kluger: 2 dimensions - (1) apps location based on requirements, and (2) onap functions closer to edge
- Vimal Begwani: apps = think as VNFC
- So, VNFC → IaaS requirements from cloud provider Business Unit
- hence, one output of this work is to define additional IaaS from Cloud Provider for Edge deployment
- Alex Vul - need to model Service Components in a way to allow for internal and external domain resources for IaaS
- Parviz Yegani - need to consider work as part of external api work...when API to external partners.
- Also, second output: onap-edge workload functions needed
Yoav Kluger: why limit to 500ms/use case 1? Yoav Kluger - for e2e requirements, need to consider using policies vs service design Parviz Yegani - for RT vs NRT: need tight coordination between domains? - Vimal Begwani- SP determines choice of domain based on meeting various requirements
Arash Hekmat - APIs imply going thru multi-cloud? (raghu clarified that the current multi-cloud work is to be the 'adapter' interface between onap components and rest of the world)
- Edge-to-Edge? (raghu clarified that currently the thinking is it is sufficient via central onap)
- DCAE hierarchy? (as vimal clarified, any cloud provider can be used to host onap components,...but, we didn't want to corrupt the diagram with too many repetitive details)
2) Srinivasa Addepalli reviewed Infrastructure Profiles in Edge Architecture & Work Items page - reviewed "large" profile as example
- Ramki Krishnan
- OVS-dpdk? (srini clarified that profile example is specific to akraino.)
- DVR for VM<>container networking? for same VNF? (srini clarified that either can be relevant)
- Parviz Yegani - networking by onap? (raghu clarified - yes, sdn-c is responsible for endpoints within domain for underlay, but openstack/k8 responsible for sr-iov/ovs aspects. Also, ramki clarified need for intra- vs inter- cloud configuration)
- Tom Tofigh - UPF (5G) for forwarding pipeline. But, we don't have SSD or memory fabric to support certain services for UE. Tom gave example of 1 RU of ssd, 1RU of GPU, 1 RU of RAM, etc...and, the edge node is composed for use by UE. So, as example, ephemeral vs long lived storage, etc. offered as part of service using the edge compute node.
- Vimal Begwani - need to keep requirements general (vs akraino specific?)...so, different implementations can support it.
3) buyukkoc briefly reviewed Edge Automationissues.pptx - need to discuss more |
| April 30th, 2018 | Review updated Gliffy Arch diagram and Notes below gliffy (also, need to update gliffy with apps locations) Review Infrastructure Profile descriptions summarized Vimal Begwani Review of MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf by Prakash Ramchandran / Prem Sankar | Review of MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf by Prakash Ramchandran / Prem Sankar - The presentation explained different types of APIs - Admin and User APIs - from the perspective of cloud provider's internal operations. It remains to be seen if these would be used by a ONAP service provider
- Also, it did not consider separation of a cloud provider from a ONAP service provider
Reviewed Infrastructure Profile summary and Gliffy Diagram in Edge Architecture & Work Items - After the call, two "ONAP activity goals" were captured in the edge infrastructure profile summary and ONAP edge automation sections
|
| May 7th, 2018 | Hierarchical DCAE - Lusheng Ji, Vijay Kumar High level review of Multi-Cloud use cases - Edge Cloud Infrastructure Enablement in ONAP | - Reviewed status of work done - used Edge Architecture & Work Items to briefly review sections/content
- Hierarchical DCAE - (link to ppt to be updated later)
- Subset of components needed in an edge was discussed
- Control agent (Consul) is used to tie parent/child instances
- DMaaP bus allowed exchange of events/notifications/etc to parent
- Shekar Sundaramurthy - one ONAP instance? yes, assumed for this discussion
- Srinivasa Addepalli - additional "apps" could be non-onap, eg., Prometheus? yes, possible
- Reviewed gliffy/arch
- Explained ONAP-central <> ONAP-edge, ie., onap-edge instance shown in figure aligned with 'edge cloud' used in figure. Clarified that other edge domains can be with onap-edge as well if needed
- Yoav Kluger - would be useful to clarify with a simpler/higher level view showing additional onap-edge instances, etc. Also, maybe multiple views for different aspects. (To be followed up with Yoav for what is needed)
- (Post call notes) Ramki Krishnan attended OOM call on May 9th. Recommendation from OOM team is to consider separate ONAP-edge instances. So, included a new 'panel' with the feedback from OOM call in Edge Architecture & Work Items wiki page.
|
| May 14th, 2018 | 1) Evgeniy Zhukov et al., Netcracker – AR/VR Use Case: - Inter edge cloud interface;
- Exposure concept; and
- Clear separation of Packet and Application processing on the same compute edge cloud resources.
2) Complete architecture discussion on single vs multiple ONAP instances, i.e. ONAP central vs ONAP edge.
| 1) Evgeniy Zhukov et al., Netcracker – AR/VR Use Case - Edge cloud as ‘black box’ with interfaces (UNI/NNI in DP, NBI in mgmt plane), with control plane having slice manager/controller/MEC-manager/etc.. - raghu/ clarified that CP’s internal ‘control/mgmt’ plane is not discussed….although there are onap components which are not relevant for edge cloud provider - Tom Tofigh - functional arch has useful distinction between pack/app processing so can consider specifying acceleration in edge for compute-intensive/storage-intensive/memory-intensive….but, capture in ONAP’s IaaS/PaaS API? object vs packet switching? Analytics on bigger address space? - animation to change network topology in order to support AR/VR meeting requirements, etc. - problem statement need clarity, ie., AR/VR app will make sure or Edge-domain provider or ONAP-provider? So, upcoming telecom model shown with 3 entities: Bus App / Slice Provider / Infra Provider - Parviz: who is responsible for AR SLA? ONAP needs to coordinate with Edge Provider? need to clarify relationship in context of our ONAP-SP <> Edge Cloud Provider - Tom: Slice app provider will manage the slice to meet SLA, etc. - Raghu: maybe good to bring it to 5G-use case calls? Ramki suggests this could be about ‘application slice’. Parviz asks if ONAP arch needs to change even with MEC manager? maybe the key point is SLA for e2e and how onap is going to split between multiple domains like edge clouds, etc. 2) Complete architecture discussion on single vs multiple ONAP instances, i.e. ONAP central vs ONAP edge. - triggered arch discussions on separate ONAP instance - Srini: need to generalize term to ‘automation offload platform’? - yoav: need to understand whether ‘separate onap instance’, ie., may not want SO, etc.? may not want it to be ‘MVP’ since onap-central is MVP+. - Gil Hellmann: minimum services/functionality at edge needed…vs using a term like MVP. maybe limited by power/space, etc. Also, even without onap functions, those edge nodes need connectivity. - shankar Narayanan: MVP - similar classification of workflows needed? sequence diagram started…but, need to work on. map the workflows that are part of the functional deliverables in R1/R2 and mapping to the edge. Also, scope of edge to meet S3P, eg., violating/meeting? - chaker: more than one central onap? eg., VF OpCos - given service context, there is one ONAP-central SP, with rest are ‘cloud providers’, etc. Need to add such an example diagram. - Yoav: ONAP-edge need to talk to multiple onap-cental….but, we need to start small. so, we don’t restrict to 1:1 for onap-edge to onap-central. within same SP, there can be inventory-sync, etc. For casablanca, we may start with 1:1 - shankar N: sharing of inventory - depends on what workflow is partitioned between central/edge. This might drive how we scope MVP. 3) Finalize minimum viable needed ONAP edge for Casablanca - ramki showed bullets in ‘edge scoping’ page - raghu suggested using shankar’s suggestion on workflows to decide additional components, eg., if needing state change, will be a request back to Cloud Provider or use a SDN-C for the ‘slice’ to change networking state, etc. - Parviz: need closed loop? so, clamp, policy, etc.? - need top down steps such as (a) what state changes, (b) what workflows, and, (c) what onap components. - VNF —> VES Collector —> sub-function of DCAE, ie., look up policy and which topic, action on which topic, pre-configured rules. - Parviz: IoT Hub? yes, architecture allows this. Also, app profiles includes cases when onap-managed or non-managed |
| May 21st, 2018 | 1) Preparation for Chris Donley's OpenStack key note which includes few slides on ONAP Edge Cloud – plan to list participant company logos. Chris may use some slides from the latest TSC update deck - ONAP-edge-automation-wg-tsc-update-05-10-2018.pptx 2) Finalize minimum viable needed ONAP edge for Casablanca
Please review the section on MVP Edge Architecture & Work Items#ONAPEdgeMVPforCasablanca | 1) Ramki: Announced Preparation for Chris Donley's OpenStack key note which includes few slides on ONAP Edge Cloud; Interested Participants to send their company logos by tomorrow morning PST. 2) review MVP - Sekar: what is an ‘instance’? confusion as to why call instance when subset of onap components - Sekar to make suggestions on alternative names
- Pasi: time sensitive events then you have to place close enough, etc. As fyi, Akraino discussions had at least 4 presentations mentioning need for some components to be based on time sensitive event management. Now, we don’t have VNFM, for example, to do LCM of VNFs. For example, failover management might need a closed loop. - ramki clarified using app profile table about RT case avoiding onap component in the path.
- raghu clarified that option c in mvp includes policy/closed loop)
- Pasi: closed loop requires VNFM/controller in edge domain (?) - Pasi: app profile table is missing even smaller timescales such as RAN fronthaul - Raghu: clarified that most of SLS for infra would be part of IaaS request, eg., link, server failure, etc. - Pasi: to put together slides for discussion be app profile and closed loop to decide on additional onap-edge components |
| May 23 | Arch Committee Discussion - Casablanca Architecture Planning Meeting | Chris Donley used Edge Architecture & Work Items page to briefly update folks on state of work - app profiles, infra profiles, onap hierarchy, edge domain, etc.. Following were some discussion points: - Gil Bullard: Should an edge cloud provider expose gory fabric details to ONAP-edge or ONAP-central? In other words, would ONAP's A&AI need to have an inventory...and why?
- raghu suggested that this depends on business relationship/trust as well as need. More likely if internal BU vs external Partner
- One need might be an IaaS slice(s) for 'onap SP' to manage infrastructure slice(s) as if they owned it
- Alternatively, simpler to request edge provider to handle details via a 'service' definition for the Service Component needed from the edge domain which will include Service Level Specification/Agreement (SLS/SLA) would be easier and consistent across both trusted/untrusted edge domains.
- Impact to ONAP work would be how detailed an object model for IaaS
- Parviz Yegani: Gliffy needs to be updated to clarify use of 'external api' to partners
- raghu: yes, action item from prior calls
- Prakash Ramchandran: highlighted the interactions with other work such as in openstack (eg., Pooling) and suggested that ONAP's IaaS/PaaS API work could take advantage of such work.
- Frank Zdarsky: suggested that IaaS/PaaS API is already available with many Cloud Providers. So, ONAP could just use them rather than try to create new.
Chris Donley noted the plan for review during March 29th arch call. Related discussion during VNF onboarding slot when discussing 'external VNFM' - Srinivasa Addepalli understood that an 'external VNFM' in an edge cloud provider could interface with onap-central if an 'external VNFM' supported ETSI SOL003.
- raghu suggested that the edge cloud provider might not allow exposure of their VNFM.
Related discussion during OOM slot - federated vs distributed K8s cluster for geo redudancy - federated view showed MEF 17 PoC example, ie., ONAP instances in different admin domains att/orange. Use of MEF reference point (eg., Interlude) for relevant APIs was mentioned.
- raghu clarified that edge automation effort is about onap instances owned by same admin ...albeit instances are hosted in different domains, ie., onap-central in SP domain vs onap-edge in edge CP domain.
- ramki clarified that onap-edge instance is dependent on onap-central in a hierarchy.
( hopefully not missing any key comment - if anyone else remembers please comment) |
May 29 (vs May 28 since Memorial Day Holiday in USA) | | - Pasi presented on relevant ONAP Edge Components. Provided insight on closed loop Fault Management as a key example of needing more ONAP services at the Edge
- MVP options A/B/C captured some of Pasi's insights, eg., DCAE, closed loop/policy, resiliency, etc. But, the debate is what is appropriate Casablanca goal vs longer term goals. So, "key changes needed for Option B" had the enhancements to various ONAP services including aggregation of events/faults/metrics.
Related Discussions - Reviewed updated gliffy for arch to ensure folks had consistent view of the problem statement, i.e., onap-central vs onap-edge for 'blue SP'. Also, edge CP domain is a black box from blue SP perspective. |
| June 4 | - Ramki Krishnan: Finalize MVP: Edge Architecture & Work Items#ONAPEdgeMVPforCasablanca
- Key Changes needed for Option B - minimal needed?
- for Casablanca? relevant steps in sequence diagram?
- Capture/Resolve any outstanding questions on architecture and sequence gliffy diagrams
- Tom Tofigh - may present on functional components for edge/CORD
Note: M1 deadline is June 28 - so 4 more calls in June | Ramki reviewed option A/B/C for MVP - chaker: option A - no onap? context? used arch gliffy to clarify ‘green CP’ to do stuff without any ‘blue onap’ stuff - dominic: what about other components needed by DCAE? depends on collecting/reporting state vs changing state - vijay: helm vs blueprint (cloudily) approach to OOM deployment of edge dcae? - chaker: edge cloud is where DCAE can run - chaker: is this work about (a) automation of edge, or (b) using onap-edge in an edge domain? - chaker: brainstorm in beijing a bit more on the problem - chaker: onap today - 100 VMs. / yoav: with OOM, it is much leaner. / yoav: DCAE - “good number of VMs’….other element, can put in “1 VM”. - chaker: are we going to have onap in the edge, or use the edge as part of VIM / ramki: leverage edge CP functionality…but, also bring some onap components if value - yoav: overloading this work with multiple problem statements, eg., distributing onap vs edge computing, etc.. In edge computing, micro services running in edge for which we want to use ONAP. But, distributing ONAP is a different problem. - raghu: reset with background info - context >> multiple problem statements >> etc.. - raghu: use of ‘multi-cloud adapter’ is the plan / reviewed gliffy arch diagram / but, API will be ‘intent’ rather than internal CLI like imperative. However, we can go next step with having some onap-edge as in option B of MVP - Bin Yang: are DMaaP and VES components in edge? yes…depends on app context….and, shown in sequence diagram where “edge CP’ does analysis and provides summary info to onap-central when no onap-edge. - ramki: reviewed different steps in sequence diagram…focusing on ‘red text’. - jack: which onap-central component is responsible for subscribing to topics? ramki gave example of correlation micro service using data and supplying to policy. micro service in onap do not talk to multi-cloud. Need to detail out interactions within ONAP-central. also, format translations between green and blue. - Arash: are we using DMaaP? / raghu: option A - no edge onap, but with option B - dcae with dmaap/ves - Arash: if no onap-edge, Control Loop in onap-central will run as today. No multi-cloud adapter involvement. /ramki: infra analytics example then multi-cloud comes to play. - Arash: if onap-edge, what does onap-central see? external orch or analytics or controller, etc.? if external analytics then not discussed about rules and operations. if ‘external controller’ then current arch committee discussions currently is via sdn-c (if non onap) or via DMaaP (if onap-like)…but, not via multi-cloud adapter (action item: to discuss in arch calls) - Arash: OOM - no runtime at this time. So, this will be huge expansion. - Borislav: OOM is not designed to trigger upon service request. / raghu clarified that OOM is used when new edge domain. Also, sequence diagram for casablanca assumes that infra is set up for OOM to instantiate onap-edge - Arash: need to capture interactions in more detail between edge DCAE and onap-central, eg., plugging in to central DMaaP or multi-cloud or sdn-c/app-c (also discussion with arch committee). / ramki clarified that any closed loop (critical stuff) is done by edge CP without ONAP. - ramki: extend DMaaP across WAN? / arash: may not make sense. So, how do those events make to onap-central. / Borisalv: http/rest interface. - chaker: each edge cloud has a ‘collector’ in onap-central? / Bin Yang: VES in onap-central is similar to current Release A and B. So, better to consider an edge VES/DMaaP? - chaker: extending onap to many edge cloud might be difficult. would be better to let edge cloud to provide summary events to onap-central. / (aside: raghu pointed out term issue - edge cloud vs edge domain) - Dominic: DmaaP has existing capability to either have edge processing or sent to central. / need to discuss. / Chaker: may not be possible to install DMaaP components in edge. / Dominic: consider when possible to have in edge - chaker: if extending DMaaP interface - so, deploy DMaaP client to collect triggers/events, then DMaaP adapter is certified in every cloud like AWS/Azure. / Jack: anything that uses API has to run in any cloud since http-based API. |
| June 11 | - Communication options across ONAP Central <-> ONAP Edge and/or Edge Cloud - Srinivasa Addepalli to present
- DMaaP role in Edge Deployments - sunil unnava to present
|
|
| June 18 | Beijing |
|
| June 25 | Requesting the PTLs and/or key folks from Infrastructure Modelling, OOF, SO, A&AI, Multi-Cloud, DCAE to join the Edge Automation MVP for Casablanca discussion. Edge Automation MVP Link: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Edge+Scoping+MVP+for+Casablanca+-+ONAP+Enhancements | Cloud Region vs Physical DC location info granularity for homing - Shankaranarayanan Puzhavakath Narayanan discussed HAS in Edge Orchestration and for OOF to know PDC info for homing
- terminology alert: ONAP used 'cloud region' for a openstack instance (or a given control plane), ie., should be PDC in figure. But, figure has cloud region = 1 or more PDCs. Need to refine terms
- slide shows 3 cloud regions for 3 different like openstack/vmware/other.
- If we want to align terms to Public cloud, then region as a geographic location such as US East (Northern Virginia)....with Availability Zones within regions, etc.
- A&AI impacts? maybe keep current terms. But, either look to tweak or MC will do mapping as needed.
- homing choice
- depends on information available such as utilization in a PDC so as to optimize selection across Cloud Regions.
- So, casablanca plan for internal-private cloud is to have detailed view of Cloud Region (type) / PDC / (Utilization + capabilities + etc.). But, model can be pruned to hide details when we transition to having edge cloud orchestrator
Terms: - as fyi, public cloud provider resources can be a <Region, AZ/Interconnect location>
- eg., AWS: <US east (N. Virginia), us-east-1a>
- eg., GCP: <europe-west2 (UK), lhr-zone1-4>
| Term | ONAP - current model | tuple of form |
|---|
| Cloud Region | cloud region = Openstack region, ie., a PDC. | <Cloud Controller, (list of 1 or more PDCs)> or <Cloud Domain name, (list of 1 or more PDCs)> Note: list of 1 or more PDCs optional for internal vs public? | | Availability Zone | none? | <Cloud Controller, AZ, (list of 1 or more PDCs)> or <Cloud Domain name, AZ, (list of 1 or more PDCs) Note: list of 1 or more PDCs optional for internal vs public? |
|
|
|
|
| July 2 | Casablanca MVP Deep Dive Anything else? | (draft notes - to be cleaned up) Ramki reviewed policy example. Some Qs discussed - MC interpreting policy for private vs public ..or, OOF?
- cost info? via API for public...but, via policy for private. MC to fetch cost policy
- cloud vendor? not needed since 'cloud agnostic'. for example, a certain parameter like 'min guarantee' can be true/false and the MC can decide choice of cloud region that can support, etc. So, depending on hard vs soft constraint, the choice can be met. But, need both HW capabilities, eg., SR-IOV flavor, and also capacity details before deciding.
- reservation? present in OOF, e.g., SDN-C reserved network, etc....but, not used in ONAP
- OOF to use returned cost values? R2 didn't have a need. Need to enhance algorithm to factor in cost
|
| July 9 | Casablanca MVP deep dive Edge Scoping MVP for Casablanca - ONAP Enhancements#ONAPEnhancements-Cloud-agnosticPlacement/Networking&HomingPolicies(Phase1-CasablancaMVP,Phase2-StretchGoal) |
|
| July 16th and July 23rd | Meetings Cancelled – Casablanca MVP Deep Dive Discussion with Relevant PTLs for R2 planning |
|
| July 30th | - Casablanca MVP deep dive on "Cloud Agnostic Placement/Networking Policies" for R3 Milestone - OOF Policies, OOF <-> MC API, SO <-> MC interaction
- Target Objective: API definition and putting together Integration Test Plan
- Aggregation service and HPA & infrastructure telemetry update - @Addepalli, Srinivasa R
- Other Casablanca Stretch Goal discussion (if time permits)
|
|
| August 6th | Casablanca MVP discussion contd. |
|
| August 13th | Casablanca MVP discussion contd. |
|
| August 20 | | - MEC -as application aware
- view as a management workload, eg., part of ONAP. In other words, not part of connectivity service chain
- view as a function for collecting/analyzing/etc. One such example is DCAE for implementation to do collecting/analyzing/etc...and expose context APIs to analytics apps
- analytics apps - as consumers - can be either internal or external (from 3rd party)
- can be per edge domain for real-time cases. But, could be regional for non-real time
- MEC services defined so far (ETSI): Location API, Radio info API, Bandwidth API
- 'platform' = having access to info, e.g., data plane object of radio link
- MEC infra mgr? this will be no different from any controller
(additional notes to be updated later) |
| Aug 27 |
|
|
| Sept 5 | - Support for K8S (Kubernetes) based Cloud regions (Srini)
- Edge Automation Potential Strategies for Deploying ONAP_v1.8.pdf (Evegeny/Manoj)
| 1. K8s based Cloud Regions 2. MEC arch ...and overlap with ONAP functional components |
| Sept 12 | O-RAN update - ONAP-Edge-ORANupdate-Sept2018.pptx Edge Automation Potential Strategies for Deploying ONAP_v1.8.pdf |
|
| Sept 19 | Dublin release planning Edge - focus? End User Group call? | MEC APIs? - focus on exposing network and end point state (eg., location) to MEC platforms
- not worry about applications themselves since can be proprietary
Focus? - Margaret suggested intent based approach and letting edge domain doing most detailed work
- we have not focused on how the edge domain is realized
- used sequence diagram in Edge Architecture & Work Items to clarify the alignment with margaret's opinions
- grey boxed region: intent request to edge domain and edge domain decides placement, etc.
- closed loop at infra level is done by edge domain....but, closed loop at service level can be done by onap-central/edge components
- 3rd party apps? onap managed or onap un-managed
- maybe focus on what onap is responsible whether network app or mec app
- (fyi - mec app = 3rd party apps like AR/VR/video cdn, etc. per ETSI definition)
- today, onap focuses on 'connectivity' services. but, future, can be any service, eg., cdn or video or super-disco
- edge domain can receive requests from multiple 'client systems'
- so, not require that all requests to edge domain go through onap-central when not onap-managed
- arash - cautioned about the depth of service model design, eg., video delivery service, which onap is not currently focused on
- Hosting end user MEC Apps in ONAP should be clearly presented to EUAG for a decision. This is not ONAP's business today.
- manoj: exposing network state/context API to MEC Apps
- sequence diagram includes 'context API' that onap-central exposes
- but, there are multiple aspects, eg., network workload <to> MEC App, network workload <to> onap-central, etc.
End User Group? - need to prepare slides to explain what Dublin release can include and get feedback
|
| Sept 26 | MEC orchestration and ONAP role for Dublin & Beyond - Srinivasa Addepalli Edge_ONAP_WG_v4.pdf (v7 used in call - to be posted soon) | Discussed APP Provider > ONAP > Edge - Context is when ONAP is doing LCM of apps on behalf of the APP Provider
- ONAP sets up both network, eg., UPF in edge, and the association with MEC Apps per policies...but, not participating in the LCM of the MEC App
- Possible Gaps in various ONAP Projects
- Manoj to provide a presentation on ongoing external API work to see what is useful in this discussion
- ONAP <> NEF Manager?
- AF interaction in onap slicing controller
- ONAP <> MEC Platform Manager?
Arash - need to ask TSC and End User Advisory Group (EUAG) about expanding ONAP scope - VNF is about 'network' function...and, not 'app function'
- purpose of app-c was for L4-L7. so, can include 'apps' that are not necessarily limited to network related.
- need more clarity on what is the set of 'apps' that an app-c is limited to
|
| Oct 3 | Discuss items for Dublin Release Used Sequence diagram in Edge Architecture & Work Items | Edge Cloud Domain/Provider - typically, ONAP > EP-ID > Region-AZ
- for eg. ONAP > EP-ID = AWS > Region-AZ/Availability Sets = USeast-1 vs USeast-2
- Assume Edge Provider = 1 or more Control Plane (eg., Openstack, K8s) Instances. Note that we already have distinction between Edge Provider's Orchestration/Control vs Infrastructure Control Plane like openstack or k8s in the gliffy diagrams
Reviewed and Updated Sequence Diagram in Edge Architecture & Work Items - App Provider > onap-managed vs onap-unmanaged
- Tweaked terms, eg., ONAP-edge Workloads
- Steps for (1) getting infrastructure, (2) deploying workloads, and (3) getting context info were reviewed for gaps/missing steps.
- Few items being addressed in casablanca....and, JIRA links included
- Need to decide for Dublin release
- IaaS/PaaS APIs and Context APIs?
- Edge Cloud Provider Orchestrator in Dublin?
- onap-managed cases only?
- etc...
Continue discussion for the next few weeks to finalize input for Dublin Release (Target November?) |
| Oct. 10 | Dublin discussion |
|
| Oct. 17 | Dublin discussion |
|
| Oct. 24 | Dublin discussion |
|
| Future Calls | Potential Topics - Casablanca Stretch Goal Discussion
- Dublin Release Discussion
|
|
| Fri. 02/08/2019 | | |
| Wed. 02/13/2019 & 02/14/2019 | | Presentation by Dominic |
| Wed. 02/20/2019 & Fri. 02/22/2019 | | AT&T EOM Slides - https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/28379482/EOM%20overview%20for%20ONAP%20community.pdf?api=v2 Meeting Recordings: 1) 02/20 - https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/28379482/zoom_1.mp4?api=v2 2) 02/22 - https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/28379482/zoom_0.mp4?api=v2 |
| Wed. 02/27/2019 | | Next Steps: - Option 2:
- Create the Apps initially
- Configuration is done later based on VNF association
- Option 3:
- Instantiate/Configure the apps on demand along with VNFs
- Add, if any, additional requirements for App Instantiation/Configuration - Chaker Al-Hakim
|
| Wed. 03/06/2019 | | Feedback on option 3 - No. 13
- Do we need Policy?
- Or simplify workflow using Configmap? –
- Platform components are UP
- Per edge cloud region K8S config information
- A&AI? -
- Deployment is central to edge … spinning
- Edge monitoring from central (global visibility) – K8S custom metrics
- No. 8 approach 2
- K8S operators CRDs – example needed
- No. 13
- Do we need Policy?
- Or simplify workflow using Configmap? –
- Central Components
- Sequence of options needed – SDC/SO before …
|
| 03/13/2019 | Agenda for Wednesday (03/13) meeting: | Cloudify presentation notes - inter site HA new capability
- Advanced capability exposure in cloudify
- similar to open source such as MongoDB
- hardened version of HA available in premium addition and not community edition
Other discussion - EOM (option 2) - Typically Onboard mgmt. applications using EOM dashboard
- Some applications such as DCAE, have dependency
|
| 05/08/2019 | Agenda for Wednesday (05/08) meeting: | Recording: Meeting Summary: |
| 05/16/2019 | Agenda for Wednesday (05/16) meeting: | Recording: https://VMware.zoom.us/recording/share/vJFWlbfnqdW_yM6dFxtA2_vCYp7yoW6K_uCc8SokgCqwIumekTziMw?startTime=1557932931000 Meeting Summary: - Presentation by Mike "ONAP and ONAP Edge Orchestration
Cloud Native Proposal for Management Workloads" - Meeting 1 - Similarity with Cloud Native Managed Applications and opportunity for synergizing with "K8S Cloud Region Support" for managed workloads appreciated
- Geo-redundancy best practices with Cloud Native - use geo distributed databases such as Cassandra (follow up in Architecture sub committee)
- Questions to be addressed in follow up meetings:
- How will this proposal address backward compatibility?
|
| 05/23/2019 | | Meeting Summary: - Convergence on using K8s ETCD (part of Central K8s cloud) for storing per Cloud Region access information
- This will be managed through K8s CRDs as part of OOM project
- This can be easily consumed by other ONAP microservices in the Central K8s cloud or other K8s clouds through a watch mechanism
- This is a good step towards a central consolidated view of all resources which is a key requirement
|
| 06/21/2019 | | Zoom Recording Link: https://VMware.zoom.us/recording/share/3vJpWdU9rSsaAx6IKENP29JVJNMCieYtMaYrfxbyLtE |
| 07/31/2019 | Agenda for Wednesday (07/29) meeting: - Presentation on ONAP <-> Akraino collaboration - @Addepalli, Srinivasa R
- ONAP orchestration for K8s managed workloads
- Istio Security value additions for ONAP Central/Edge management workloads (can be potentially useful for managed workloads also)
| Presentation Link: Zoom Recording Link: https://VMware.zoom.us/recording/share/3ny37ELByFlRmuVEOmAqev-YIJ-deWQ17-XxJEm4vjuwIumekTziMw |
Edge = Small Central Office (eg., CU for vRAN)