User Tools

Site Tools


Edge NFV Team Meetings


* Alternating Wednesdays at 9:00 pm US Pacific time 5:00 UTC Thursday (when US Standard Time) / 6:00 UTC Thursday (when US Daylight Saving Time)
Find your local time.

* <Add meeting day/time for alternating week>

* GoToMeeting


Meeting Agendas and Minutes

December 10, 2015

Attendes: James, Michael, Jesse, Taiyun


Item 1: Scope of Group
MK: In tunneling section, broaden the question to allow for segment routing
MK: In Monitoring … propose we use Assurance as a slightly broader term
MK: Noted that MANO is now in scope for OPNFV
MK: Propose that “edge” gets defined a little more explicitely (E.g. Home, business service and mobile)
MK: Should add an item listing out the gaps/challenges associated with pushing the NFV location from the “ISP POP” (or similar) to the true network edge (e.g. Scaling, security … )
Taiyun: Ensure that a distributed base station use case is in scope. (Agreed!)
JH: Worried about too many use cases, propose focusing on Mobile and Enterprise
JB: Let’s start with three and include Residential
JH: Would we cover MANO?
All: Agreed that we would identify the needs we place on MANO from eNFV, but we wouldn’t spec MANO itself.
MK: Will publish a link to the ETSI MANO definition document (with crib notes!)
JH: Wondering if MPLS is out of scope.
All: Its borderline … simply of interest when we talk of options for forwarding user and management traffic

Item 2: Who is working on what
MK: Looking at Home Gateway and ISP Edge from the forwarding point of view … has something to contribute
MK: In the middle of containers vs VM’s … Would also like to work there
MK: Not a security guy, but is in possession of a report
MK: List of gaps
JB: Squaring bare metal with remote survivability
JB: Multi DC management/orchestration
JB: Securing the link
JB: List of gaps
JH: Containers vs VM
JH: Mano

Next Steps
* Those that stepped forward should work on capturing lead ideas/thoughts in as much detail as possible for the next meeting
* Comments invited from everyone on all topics under development, especially including the list of gaps.
* James to solicit input on times for next meetings initial target is week of Jan 11.
* At next meeting, we will present initial notes

November 25, 2015


* 5 minute on Scope to check for additions/deletions
* Review of Residential Services topic (MK)
* Time permitting

  • Review of Service Use Cases (Andrew S)
  • Dividing up the agreed topics so that work can begin


Edge NFV scope
No further items suggested

Review of Residential Services
Michael K presented his slides on "Disposable Containers at the Edge", initially presented during the 'Futures' track at 2015 OPNFV Summit
Question: where is the edge? Virtualization initially developed in data centers. Now the edge has moved outward. Recently "edge" represents ISP premise location closest to the customer.
Customer premises - the home - is the opposite of the data center in that compute and store are distributed rather than centralized. Orchestration as it exists was not designed for massive scale distributed endpoints such as the homes of service provider customers.
Should VNFs be deployed in subscribers' homes? Some examples illustrate why this is useful.
Examples include: WAN fault monitoring, performance monitoring, reduce traffic between the premises and service provider's network.
Introduction to Profiles (aka "templates")
Michael proposes that orchestration software will change from data center orchestration to pre-defined 'profiles' Next proposal: "Disposable" or short-deployment-time VNFs
Another potential use of VNF is to measure link metrics, e.g., to measure metrics required by FCC in U.S.A.
Building hardware or software into the end device, e.g., residential gateway to measure link metrics represents a fixed cost to the device. This functionality can be performed by a VNF that is loaded temporarily to collect the data, then removed. i.e., the VNF is transient in the device.
Question: is this transient VNF always there and only used occasionally, e.g., on a licensed basis?
Disposable means requirement for hypervisor, right?
Under the proposal the VNF is removed from the subscriber's device when a trigger occurs. Examples of trigger include time limits or external or internal usage limits.
Removing the VNF can reduce the complexity of orchestration by eliminating or reducing the need for the orchestrator to manage the lifecycle of the VNF.
Propose to use a simpler solution like profiles, think of it as a "pre-determined service chain", rather than an orchestrated service chain.
James said some service providers he has spoken with have similar ideas to what Michael proposed, e.g., static service chains previously defined and each with its own SKU.
Another chain of thoughts from Peter Willis from BT: OpenStack doesn't scale. Several fundamental features of OpenStack need to mature or be modified before they are ready for large scale ISP deployments.
James will explore inviting Peter to attend an eNFV meeting.
Michael defers the topic of security considerations to a future call.

Adva Service Use Cases
Andrew presented slides on the topic OPNFV for eNFVI Platform
The presentation introduces an Edge NFVI deployment use case: CPE hosted VNF, thousands of "micro data centers", host is explicitly selected rather than orchestrated by NOVA scheduler, usually a single host at the site, all management traffic is inband due to limited number of device interfaces.
This model applies to mid- to large-size enterprises, but perhaps eventually to smaller enterprises as well. Michael suggests identifying differences between large and small enterprises. For example large enterprises may have redundant resources while smaller enterprises may not.
Use Case: WAN: uplinks 1 GE, demarcation is mandatory, tunneling over IP/MPLS WAN, underlying network might fail, tenant traffic may be intercepted
For further discussion: should architecture be 'bare metal' or virtual components at the edge?

Core Questions
Large number of small centers: what is the viable approach? Static, semi-static, full dynamic
Bare metal vs. not bare metal at edge
What is the model for getting traffic back from edge to core? What is the security model?
James proposes to subdivide the project group to sub-groups to investigate these topics.

Action Items
Define what class of enterprise this project considers in scope and document in the project charter.
James will request an e-mail reflector for eNFV from Linux Foundation

November 18, 2015


* Review of the Scope
* Review of the Connectivity Services LSO activity in ODL and OPNFV


Project description:
* The NFV movement is largely focused gaining the efficiencies of large data centre compute infrastructure. This is sensible, however to paraphrase the old switching/routing saying … centralize what you can, distribute what you must. Some applications naturally belong at the edge: WAN Acceleration, Content Cacheing, and depending on your philosophy, Firewalling all fall into that category. Other more specialized test applications also need to be at the edge to exercise the portions of the network under test. Similarly many business applications are most efficiently delivered at the edge.
* The purpose of this Requirements Project is to articulate the capabilities and behaviours needed in Edge NFV platforms, and how they interact with centralized NFVI and MANO components of NFV solutions
* MK propose to strike/clarify the use of the word “centralized” since large eNFV scenarios likely can’t be handled by a single NFVI instance
* Appropriate Tunneling for User Traffic across WAN (Ethernet, IP/MPLS) links
* Appropriate Tunneling for Management Traffic across WAN links
* Including reachability requirements to the compute platform
* Extending Multi-DC management to address many small "DC" locations (Jesse interested … "micro DC running on the edge")
* Monitoring Capabilities required for a remote Compute Node
* Squaring Bare Metal with remote survivability and whether IaaS is more appropriate for remote locations
* Include any architecture diagrams or specifications, reference to OPNFV requirements list.
* Jesse: IaaS needs to support VMs and Containers co-existing (Liberty is all about containers) … Google Container Service, AWS Containers … Containers will reside in the VMs
* ML: Landslide product working on Edge … just letting us all know
* MK: is interested in home … so scaling to millions … smaller number of VNFs, larger number of CNs … perhaps service chaining gets simpler
* MK: Cablelabs working with MEF. Very focused at L2 setting up interfaces and formats (whereas his interface) … MK can give overview of this.
* ML: Curious about security aspect across the WAN … how does one secure inter-VNF communication between VNFs in the chain. MK: Authentication of remote nodes to the controller … MK can share what they did at Cablelabs
* Kevin Luehrs Data Plane Optimization (TBD if eNFV needs to specifically address this, or pick up work from other groups … DPACC?)
* We discussed MANO and MK explained that OPNFV was likely to expand scope to address this.
* John pointed out that we need to Define some use cases …

* Kevin shared description of OPNFV Connectivity Services LSO (LSOAPI) project and OpenDaylight UNI Manager project

  • MEF ELINE service description
  • Defined YANG model to feed into ODL
  • Instances were OVS running in Raspberry Pi … and talk to it using OVSDB
  • Service model is to connect UNI’s with GRE tunnel
  • Connectivity Services LSO is the aspect of this in OPNFV
  • Next steps is to migrate to MEF’s latest service model
  • Focused on the “SDN aspect of this problem”

November 11, 2015


* <add agenda here>


* <add minutes here>

Back to ENFV main project page

meetings/enfv.txt · Last modified: 2016/01/05 16:08 by Andrew Sergeev