Page History

Day 1 Top Level: 

• CNF to specific platform 1:1 as a deployment requirement does not and cannot scale.
• What is the highest priority activity that will reduce the cost due to re-work for end users, platform vendors, workload (CNF) vendors?

• As a follow up to the January Workshop, several consecutive focused sessions with CNF vendors to gain an understanding of what requirements they need from LFN projects and community to support their workloads and applications. Need to look at the expectations from the onboarding/orchestration, on-going supportability and infra platform perspectives
  • What are the vendors' priorities, objectives and expected outcomes? Improved time to market?  Ability to use a reference architecture to cut development time? Something else?
  • What architectures, requirements, guidelines, and test frameworks or information are needed to achieve these objectives? Are we talking how to give guidelines and test for them against the platform requirements, or are there specific testing regimes for applications?

• Map out an Infra Platform and Compliance Framework
• Orchestration requirements and framework
• How to map Anuket RA and RC activities to support CNF workloads
  • Is it sufficient to come up with a basic framework to demonstrate functionality on an example RI?
  • Do a discrete set the CNF compliance/platform interop requirements need to be fed directly into Anuket project workstreams?

Deep Dive: Interoperability Challenges

• Part 4: CNF Interoperability Challenges  between workload/platform and orchestrator/workload
• CNI – is this the only answer?
• Other networking frameworks (eg., Istio, Envoy)?
• Networking abstraction – how do we push this past the goal line, publish, and test?
• Data Plane
  • If performance tuning is a source of interop issues, how do we address these?
  • Are data plane issues as opaque to workloads as claimed (should we do a survey, or testing experiment to have non-anecdotal data)?

• EMCO/ONAP Architecture alignment Deep Dive
  • Part 1: On-boarding: Alignment across ONAP and EMCO, taking into account the role played by k8s.
    • Assumption for ingress: Helm v3 
    • Needs to be jointly defined first, then determine if and where it belongs upstream.
    • Is there a connection to Anuket and Anuket Assured program? Infrastructure→Applications>Onboarding>MANO>Infrastructure (end-to-end)
  • Appropriate use cases for EMCO and ONAP, when to use them separately and or together
    • Lessons learned from:
      • Magma orchestration with EMCO (2022-01-13 - EMCO: Orchestration of Magma)
      • Magma orchestration with ONAP (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/2022+Enterprise+Task+Force?preview=/117743631/117743639/ONAP_Magma%20Integration%20status.pptx)

• Post-onboarding activities and requirements as products move into production – Day 2  operations handoff and ongoing mgmt– where and how are ongoing metrics collected and how to they feed into relevant parts of the stack....
  • What is considered in or out of the stack in various architectures....

• Common documentation standardized guidelines – Minimum requirements and expectations, tools, types of documentation required for different types of projects.
• Common tooling – What is the current set of tools?  Is there a possibility for consolidation?  Is it needed?  Is this even possible?