(any followup?) RE: Thank You For Attending MODM
Narayanan, Rajesh
Hi Everyone,
For those who were not present, there was a MANO-panel at the NFV summit last week. My take was that the panel felt it is too soon for the different projects to converge, and for good reasons. Like promoting diverse viewpoints and ensuring there is innovation. Converging too soon may also not be good. But the panel also agreed (somewhat??) that we should at least take a stab at defining a ‘common information model’.
Just wondering if there was a followup meeting from the meeting at Brocade. Not sure if I missed something.
@Bryan, we talked briefly about this at the NFV summit last week. Thought I’d ask the same question on this thread.
Thanks,
Rajesh Narayanan
Distinguished Technologist
NFV Business Unit
From: modm-d...@googlegroups.com [mailto:modm-d...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Tom Nadeau <tna...@Brocade.com>; Lakshmi Sharma <lakshm...@gmail.com>; modm-d...@googlegroups.com
Cc: opnfv-tec...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: Thank You For Attending MODM
The OPNFV wiki migration slowed me down, but here is some info and my high-level takeaway from the MODM event. I’ve captured the meeting notes and takeaways on the OPNFV wiki at: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/models/160322+Management+and+Orchestration+Developer+Meetup+at+Brocade
We had a great overview of the various MANO projects and detailed discussions with some of the leads. Decks that have been shared (I’ll add others as I get them):
· Models_for_MANO_Meetup.pptx
· Brocade ManageIQ Overview.pdf
· Project Tacker Overview - MODM.pptx
· OSM-ONS16-An introduction to Open Source MANO project.pptx
· OPEN-O ONS Keynotes MODM version2.pptx
· We will continue discussion across the projects (OPNFV, OSM, Open-O, etc) on the software components that we all agree should be a "commodity" (i.e. not important for differentiation of any project or product based upon them), with the intent to start fast on converging code in these areas, and expanding the areas of common code over time. Initial focus of code convergence will be on:
· VNF / Service Catalog
· Common elements within VNFM
· Parsers e.g. for TOSCA and YANG
· Workflow engine, i.e. the code that manages config, lifecycle, and policy requirements of a VNF per the VNFD / NSD etc
· VIM Plugins, i.e. the code that adapts the workflow to the particular NBI of various IaaS providers
· I mentioned that we are working on a proposal for open-sourcing a VNF “exhaust” event-stream spec and agent/collector code that will enable a common monitoring/analytics framework beyond what is obtainable from VIMs (e.g. via Monasca/Ceilometer which is VNF management enabling but generally does not include VNF/application-specific data, syslogs, etc).
·
· NEXT STEPS:
· Assess the code bases that we want to start sharing
· For the two main areas in near-term scope (Catalog, VNFM), open source projects should identify the specific components they are interested in sharing (i.e. offering to other projects as a common base), e.g.:
· For ARIA: TOSCA parser, workflow engine, multi-VIM plugin framework
· For Rift.ware: multi-VIM plugin framework
· Define a process for continuing the collaboration
· We will plan additional events, and share information/discussions in collaboration spaces. OPNFV can provide a common place for this, e.g. thru its agile tools such as the wiki, JIRA, Slack, Trello, etc. A proposal for this will be sent to the attendees with the meetup summary.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
From:
modm-d...@googlegroups.com [mailto:modm-d...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:06 AM
To: Lakshmi Sharma <lakshm...@gmail.com>;
modm-d...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Thank You For Attending MODM
On behalf of everyone that helped set this meeting up I wanted to thank everyone who attended. I think
we had a very productive two days.
If you have additional feedback – either positive or negative - please either send it to me directly, or post to the list here.
Thank you,
—Tom
My summary of the two days is as follows, including action items going forward:
Day 1:
The theme of day one was to have the various groups (open-o, OSM, tacker, JUJU, cloud forms) in this space describe their wares and also try to identify both common and unique areas in their offering. The presentations from VZ and ATT were also good to present what they wanted in this space, as well as other challenges around
deploying such open source solutions in their environments.
The purpose was to not debate which was better, and I am glad that we stayed on that theme. Each project presented their project in a decent level of detail depending on the project, and there was good discussion about each. We discussed and debated the merits of an open source solution (either pure or vendor re-packaged) versus something proprietary.
The outputs of day 1 were to have folks think about the common components and come prepared on Tuesday to discuss those common parts.
Day 2:
Thesis: There are a number of open source projects trying to solve the MANO problem. Rather than spending any time debating which one is better,
which would effectively end up with no actionable outputs, instead, can we focus on the commonly underlying components and agree to collaborate on those.
My thesis is that underneath those projects, %85 of the code used to realize them is the same. This is analogous to why we did
ODL 4 years ago: because every new proprietary controller contained a similar level of duplication. As an industry, it behoves us all to
stop reinventing the wheel.
Theme: Break down the VNFM and O functions into constituent components by first asking ourselves: what components are actually in those boxes? This was apparently a question many hadn’t asked themselves and it sparked some interesting discussion/debate.
After some discussion we settled on what pieces parts existed within those two components and focused on breaking down these major components further with the goal of them trying to consolidate open source coding efforts around those, either that day or going forward as part of this effort:
1) VNF and Services catalog
2) VNFM validation function
3) VNFM on boarding function
There were some other subcomponents that were teased out but a bit less work happened on those.
The output/actions of the meeting were:
0) Continue collaboration about the above components and try to work on coding the common components.
1) Attendees really loved the format and want to do this on a bi-weekly basis virtually.
Some proposed that we create a new site to host this collaboration, but most were happy with the G tools we were using.
2) Many attendees asked me to have an in-person meeting quarterly. San Jose/Brocade is a fine location, but others volunteered to
help host (Intel).
3) Again, many were very supportive of how I structured and guided the meetings. Very non-confrontational and objective. They were
also very happy with the fact that we almost never focused on comparing which one was better and instead focused on
how to help bring people together to work on the common components.
Based on the above, I will take the action to work with you all and setup the periodic meetings and meeting spaces.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modm-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
modm-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
modm-d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/modm-discuss/DAABC762-97C3-4CA0-AF08-BF944BB5D8DB%40brocade.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modm-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
modm-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
modm-d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/modm-discuss/59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C35497A871F%40CAFRFD1MSGUSRJD.ITServices.sbc.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Narayanan, Rajesh
Hi Everyone,
Pre-empting any misunderstanding here, and hope this did not cause any confusion. This email was to summarize my understanding from the panel discussion. Didn’t want this to sound like meeting minutes from the panel discussion. It definitely is not.
And of course to know about follow-up from the brocade meetings.
Thank you again.
Rajesh.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/modm-discuss/AT5PR84MB01964FCC858600CB84DD3E5284620%40AT5PR84MB0196.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Tom Nadeau
Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3...@att.com>, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tna...@Brocade.com>, Lakshmi Sharma <lakshm...@gmail.com>, "modm-d...@googlegroups.com" <modm-d...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "opnfv-tec...@lists.opnfv.org" <opnfv-tec...@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: (any followup?) RE: Thank You For Attending MODM
Hi Everyone,
For those who were not present, there was a MANO-panel at the NFV summit last week. My take was that the panel felt it is too soon for the different projects to converge, and for good reasons. Like promoting diverse viewpoints and ensuring there is innovation. Converging too soon may also not be good. But the panel also agreed (somewhat??) that we should at least take a stab at defining a ‘common information model’.
Just wondering if there was a followup meeting from the meeting at Brocade. Not sure if I missed something.
@Bryan, we talked briefly about this at the NFV summit last week. Thought I’d ask the same question on this thread.
Tom Nadeau
Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 8:18 PM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3...@att.com>, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tna...@Brocade.com>, Lakshmi Sharma <lakshm...@gmail.com>, "modm-d...@googlegroups.com" <modm-d...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "opnfv-tec...@lists.opnfv.org" <opnfv-tec...@lists.opnfv.org>