Have 3 participants providing VNFs for testing

• ULAK
• Aarna Networks
• STC

Working on two infrastructures, with 3rd being setup

• 2 OpenStack / ONAP ElAlto
• 1 OpenStack / ONAP Dublin (virtual, being setup)

VNF Images have uploaded to infrastructure

• Getting infrastructure up and ready for testing
• Some issues with ONAP reaching Open Stack API (should be solved by end of today)

• Running conformance test cases 
• Run validation test cases

• Need to align release with main open source communities.
• OPFN, ONAP, OVP.

• cross-community sessions to go through the details.

• Containers technology is evolving technology, how CNTT will adopt such a dynamic environment. 

• Launching/supporting OVP Phase 2.0 taking MVP approach.

• Have 2 organizations who have volunteered to be part of the Friendly (Alpha) release testing. (One with the initials "Red" and "Hat")

• Start getting feedback from them ASAP on RI/RC and test results to date.
• Get them participating in WS release and RI/RC planning to help shape the onboarding process

CIRV is approved project in OPNFV - this is the delivery of RI and RC for CNTT.

• This is THE project for creating the RI

CI/CD Evolution to solve today's problems

• Writing/fixing Jenkins is hard, need more modern solutions,...
• but which one(s)?
• Projects will have greater responsibilities/More on their own

• propose a transition plan, once we agree / accept the migration pain and real $$ costs

• ← They aren't the same (but certainly possible to evolve to new/better description).

• Hacking! Coordinate time(s) on OPNFV Tech Discuss list

• See Slides and Attendance list (please add your name) at

  Challenge: OPNFV PDF to Airship Manifest Transformation

ONAP Usability

• Unawareness of key documentation
• Unawareness of what has been done i.e. Modularity

• Promote what we have done- bi-weekly news
• Provide guidelines to PTL
• Focus on Core Use Cases/Core components to reduce the complexity - including prioritization 

Are we making progress on platform maturity?

• Performance, Stability - only Integration checks
•  Resiliency, Scalability = OOM?
•  Operability - upgrade build

• During the project lifecycle & Reviews, let's review these potential assumptions with the PTL
•  Platform enrichments vs full E2E use cases
•  CI/CD investments
•  Introduce S3P reqs through the new Requirements subcommittee (formerly Use Case reqs)

Next steps support:

• CNF support
• TOSCA 

• SO proposed architecture key additions:
  • Puccini
  • Artifacts
  • k8s APIs
  • Custom resources
  • Custom controllers

Main requirements for Frankfurt

• Python migration to version3
• Java migration to version 11
• CII badging with better code coverage
• OSJI backlogs
• Remove hardocded passwords
• Get HTTPS for all external ports

How to get all OSJI solved by PTL ? => Need help from TSC to progress

Proposals to remove all Root privileges to containers and to  automatically check in Gating

User management is also a key topic to be addressed. Some experience from ODL could be used.

Main objectives for Frankfurt

• Migrate to Kubernetes 1.16
• Migrate to Helm3
• Ingress controller introduction
• Database consolidation ongoing
• Storage class
• Password management

Creation of template for Helm charts

Discussions on database: do we still need so many DB types ? Impacts on operations (backup/restore)

Discussions on password managementto contuniue with dedicated sessions tomorrow

TOSCA based closed Loop

Extend closed loop from DACE/Policy to other appalications

CLAMP extension

• pre-deployment verification
• app deployment
• CL monitoring
• CL update/delete

• Extended debates 

• Presenters not concluding on time

• Please be connected to the bridge 10 mins before schedule
• Please request follow-up discussions
• Please stick to your scheduled timeslot 

• Have 2 organizations who have volunteered to be part of the Friendly (Alpha) release testing. (One with the initials "Red" and "Hat")

• Start getting feedback from them ASAP on RI/RC and test results to date.
• Get them participating in WS release and RI/RC planning to help shape the onboarding process

• Several sessions on progress that was made in CNTT RI and RC, which leverages OPNFV LaaS, Intel pods 10 and 15, and Functest.
• Validation of hardware to support the software testing; Pharos 2.0 discussion; Manifest validation.
• Defining the next release of OPNFV Verified Program.

RI + RC WS Update:

• This is the ONLY RI.  All VNF vendors must certify against this deployment (in their own lab or via LFN) in order to get their CNTT badge for VNFs.
• Cookbook intended to be complete instruction set for VNF suppliers to set up environment and run test suites.
• Working on framework and community ratification
• VNF certification is to be run against the RI, but then also against the a NFVI vendor's RC compliant stack.

• Need to determine test scope - VNF is part of the scope
• Issue that NFVI vendors must be able to Certify their products separately, with reference VNFs

• Continue iterating on the documentation and cookbook.
• Cookbook Validation and "Golden" VNF Creation.  Friendly Trial: Looking for volunteer VNF Vendors to work through the process.

Hardware Delivery Validation

• Part of CNTT certification is checking the hardware
• This can be considered step 0 of an RC suite: does the hardware meet a bare minimum specification in order to be RC compliant.

• How to get all this information? (tooling)
• What information do carriers consider to be relevant?

• Session continued tomorrow at 9:00 in Rm 220

OPNFV Release Process Evolution

• a series of observations of where we are and what challenges we have
• Operating at installer/feature (scenario) as the release artifact for past 4 years

• Installer base has dwindled
• Tools (test suites) have become more important
• CNTT is temporary entity to stand up new process/model and hand off to OPNFV
• Moved to part time release management support

• How does the Heritage of successful and still-active projects continue?  Do these projects use independent Release? (TSC questions)
  • Independent release will still benefit from Release Marketing by using the project delta(s) from previous OPNFV Release.
• Check ODL precedent for "academic" vs "core" released projects
• This needs to be taken to TSC for a decision (with prior review & demo at weekly Tech Discuss? these two things are usually paired-up).
• Two personalities: 1) the stable RC and 2) the original concept of closing gaps by working upstream and verifying the tip of  master

OVP 2.0

• Working session to help define mission and scope.

• What is the scope of OVP Ph2.0?
• Do we need to define "Cloud Native" or just what is being verified? It is for compliance with the documentation from RA - these are the behavioural aspects, and so the question becomes does the implementation match?

• Define scope of C/VNF testing

Change Management support

Presented what is done in Frankfurt and what is planned in Guilin

Build and Replace worklfow schould allow to modufy existing instances of the VNFs on the fly.

Lack of VNFC level reconfiguration is one if the missing features on SO/Controller side which is not suppoirted today. We want to solve this issue in the Guilin release

PNF support by ONAP Change Management is the key challenge, planned to extend in Guilin

Schema/VSP Update is a chalange in the Upgrade process in ONAP. We want to addres this issue and to enable update of the schema with adequate modification of the existing instnces of services - for PNFs, VNFs and CNFs

Integration with CDS and K8s workloads as one of the key drivers for improvements of change management porocess in ONAP as K8s provides scaling, upgrades and traffic distribution capabilities by itself. For Frankfurt integration with CDS for CNFs creation is introduces. IN further releases K8s scaling and upgrade capabilities should be introduced.

This presentation focused on:

• Introduction to Transport Slicing in 5G context
• Design of Transport Slicing
• How to extend CCVPN to enable Transport Slicing
• How Transport Slicing fit into E2E Network Slicing
• How to work with SDOs on coordinating aspects of standards

1. Continue to work with the SDO's to improve and finalize the IETF TEAS working group draft on Transport Slicing
2. Finalize the architecture of Networking Slicing on how NFVO should be used
3. Should the Transport Slicing solution support CNF Connectivity?
4. Should Transport Slicing be considered as a Generic Network Building block?

Network slicing (core network) ongoing support by ONAP

CSMF and NSMF part of ONAP. External NSSMF to be used.

Demo for Frankfurt:

• Transport subnet not in scope
• Simulator RAN and core NSSMF simulator

ONAP components Impacts

• No evolution in SDC
• New WF for SO and NSSMFAdaptor
• OOF used for NSI selection
• &AI impact to include new 3GPP concepts (service profile, slice profile...)
• 2 new portals: CSMF and NSMF (under UUI project)

Challenges on whether this is the only possible implementation or there may be more

Alignment on models and API  with 3GPP and  ORAN A1

Next step for G Release: include transport and mronitoring

Discussion on communication-service-profile introduced in ONAP

Warning on  templates that are deprecated within 3GPP

SECCOM: Ingress controller 

Ingress Controller introduced for Frankfurt as an option deployment

Effort on passing knowledge to ONAP teams on ingress controller and service mesh

 Get the Community Aligned on Network Slicing - AP for Architecture/Requirements subcommittee + Magnus (ONAP TCC)

What are the "baby steps" to build a "Slicing" roadmap

Promote ONAP through #1 use cases that does not require changes in ONAP; #2 POC so Innovation can continue while focus on ONAP Core. 

 Use Case Subcommittee

•  Review of Frankfurt/Guilin Use cases

•  Prepare comms about 'use cases' renamed as 'Requirements'
• => Goals & Scope as per TSC vote last year
•  Need to review TSC Chart
•  Process to review to identify resources prior the M1 release to prepare the work upfront related to new reqs - to identify companies who will provide dev/test to implement them 

 Modeling Subcommittee

• Review of the ongoing activities
•  Latest feedback from ONAP/TM Forum from Magnus, our TCC representative
• Information Model Documentation
• API Swagger Documentation

Align Information Model with external SDO

Alignment with Documentation to include glossary from Modeling team and to improve API Documentation.

Communication to PTL to explain the API Swagger reco