• Short Description

60 minutes Beth Cohen Gergely Csatari 

Six years in, Anuket is more important than ever, 

Topic Overview

The Anuket project has been building reference models and architectures to support telco workloads on cloud and container infrastructure.  There is now a solid body of documentation that has been accepted into the GSMA standards and forms the references for several other LFN projects.  However, as a mature project, it seems to not be getting the love and attention that it should in the telco community of vendors and operators.  In this session, we will look at where Anuket has been, and look forward where does it need to go to remain a useful tool for guidance for building telco strength infrastructure.

Session Type


Interactive technical presentation and/or capability demo


Pre-Recorded technical presentation and/or capability demo


Live / hands-on technical training

X

Community process, governance or collaboration development


Real-time troubleshooting, bug-scrub or similar

Other (please describe)

Slides & Recording

YouTube

Following the event session recordings may be uploaded to our YouTube Channel at the full discretion of LFN staff.

2024-05 - Anuket Project Value and Future Direction.mp4

Notes From Session (as appropriate)

Notes here

  • Anuket specs are very stable
  • RI-s are not active at all
    • There are discussions about to state Sylva as RI2
    • There is a reference implementation for OpenStack (RI1), but it is not maintained
    • Functest uses Devstack from OpenStack
    • Kind is used by functest
  • Testing of workloads
    • even CoreDNS is failing the CNTI tests
    • We should consider the test case integration requirements
  • OpenSSF Scorecard pr
    • Not applicable for Gerrit
    • There are some debateable checks
    • We should run the scorecard locally and agree on what checks we consider relevant
  • Unstealth Anuket
    • We should be more clear about what is active in Anuket and what is archived
    • We should communicate better our achivements
    • We should do a webinar
    • Jill can get quotes if we can point to adopter organisations

Action Items (as appropriate)

  •  

3 Comments

  1. Satyam Kumar

    Gergely Csatari 

    Dear Mr. Csatar,

    I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the current status of the project and whether it is still open for acceptance. I recently came across the details of the project and am very interested in contributing to its success.

    Having carefully reviewed the project requirements and objectives, I believe that my skills and experience align well with what you are seeking. I am confident that I can make a valuable contribution to the project team and deliver high-quality results.


  2. Taylor Carpenter

    Gergely Csatari Beth Cohen 

    Whoever brought these items up needs to open an issue up https://github.com/cnti-testcatalog/testsuite/issues and provide a link to the failure logs or attach them to the CNTi issue

      • Testing of workloads
        • even CoreDNS is failing the CNTI tests
        • We should consider the test case integration requirements

    It is not helpful to say these comments and not provide feedback to the project.  The problem could be the specific environment, in which case we should try to determine why its working for other people, or it could be a problem with a test, or it can even be that coredns does not pass all tests.  CoreDNS is just one sample CNF used for testing purposes.


    The real testing is when a vendor brings a CNF and gives feedback on their production application. Huawei, F5, MATRIXX are a few of the vendors who have ran the test suite directly with their products.



    It would be great to see Nokia added to the list and hear your feedback.


    1. Taylor Carpenter

      Fixed the wrong person tagged. correct ->  Beth Cohen