1 / 8

Chaker Al-Hakim

This draft proposal discusses the review of a Tungsten Fabric proposal for potential inclusion in the LFN TACONAP community. It highlights key points and insights from community discussions and email threads related to the proposal.

carrion
Download Presentation

Chaker Al-Hakim

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formerly OpenContrail) For Official Inclusion in the LFN TACONAP Community Recommendations(Draft Proposal) Chaker Al-Hakim

  2. Community Discussion, Email threads (Draft) From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Catherine LEFEVRESent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:07 AMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.orgSubject: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tacImportance: High Dear TSC (or proxy), We have been requested by the TAC to review the Tungsten Fabric proposal. I have added the links related to this proposal to the JIRA TSC-41 task. I need somebody to take the lead regarding this activity. Can one of you assign this task to herself/himself while the others can post any feedback to the JIRA ticket? thanks Due Date: Nov 5th, 2018 End of your Day? https://jira.onap.org/browse/TSC-41 Thanks in advance for your support. Many thanks & regards Catherine (2) Chaker (3) Srini (1) Catherine's initial request From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SriniSent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:59 AMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.orgSubject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Hi Catherine and Chaker, My 2 cents. There are two contexts I guess feedback is given. Usage of TF in ONAP: TF in many ways similar to ODL in terms of role and capabilities. ODL is chosen by ONAP as base for CCSDK/SDNC/APPC. Is TAC asking to see whether TF can be leveraged by ONAP in place of ODL? Using TF in sites as site level SDN controller : In case of Openstack based sites, it is really up to the site administrator and from ONAP perspective it is  transparent as ONAP leverages Neutron API.  In case of K8S based sites, there is some support required in ONAP (Multi-Cloud) based on SDN controller chosen at the site. K8S Multi-Cloud intend to support OVN, flannel, SRIOV-NIC based networks initially (R4) and get community feedback on other networking controllers (Yes, we see requests coming to us to support Contiv and TF, but the decision to be made at right time based on interest from SPs on the site level SDN controllers). Thanks Srini From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Chaker Al HakimSent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 8:41 AMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.orgSubject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Hi Catherine, Please count me unless you have found a lead already. Thanks, Chaker DRAFT

  3. Community Discussion, Email threads From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 8:17 AMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.orgCc: Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org>Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Chaker,  My understanding that TF is an incubation project. Remember projects have different  lifecycle under LFN. TF needs to become an approved full project for it to be like ONAP. Phil or Kenny can provide the official position here. Mazin (4) Chaker (5) Catherine (6)Chaker From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Catherine LEFEVRESent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:27 PMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org>Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Good afternoon/morning Chaker, Srini, Casey, Thank you Chaker to take the lead on this action item. Thank you both for your feedback. The request from the TAC team was not to review the Tungsten Fabric proposal in the context of ONAP projects, but to review it as being part of LFN. Casey – feel free to add any comment in case of I have miscaptured the TAC request Many thanks & regards Catherine On Nov 1, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Chaker Al Hakim <chaker.al.hakim@huawei.com> wrote: Hi Catherine, Srini and I briefly discussed  this request at the Montreal F2f meeting. We both thought that TF is already a separate project under the LFN umbrella. Furthermore, I have seen some TAC budget slides recently that showed TF as  a separate  budget line item which, I believe,  means that it is a already a separate project. Can we please get additional clarifications on this request so that we’re working the right action item. Or perhaps we can have a quick call with the LFN team to better understand the scope of this request. Thanks, Chaker DRAFT

  4. Community Discussion, Email threads From:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 8:17 AMTo:onap-tsc@lists.onap.orgCc: Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org>Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Chaker,  My understanding that TF is an incubation project. Remember projects have different  lifecycle under LFN. TF needs to become an approved full project for it to be like ONAP. Phil or Kenny can provide the official position here. Mazin (7) Mazin (8) Chaker On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 AM Chaker Al Hakim <chaker.al.hakim@huawei.com> wrote: Thanks Mazin, that’s helpful. So the question now seems to be more related to the process of promoting a project from incubation state to become a fully approved LFN project. If that’s the case then we would need to also look at 1) how other projects were promoted in the past, perhaps we can use (Akraino or Acumos as an example) 2) funding and resources and 3) impact on overall budget. The other option is to collectively decide that a new process is needed to address this case, and to also address similar cases in the future, and would be considered a LFN governance item that the GB should take up Regards, Chaker DRAFT

  5. Community Discussion, Email threads (9)Phil From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Phil Robb Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:36 PM To: onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Cc: Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Hello All: A slight correction to Mazin's input. The request isn't associated with TF changing it's state. This is actually part of the "re-induction" review. When TF went through it's original induction earlier in the year (starting in March), the Governing Board requested that an Induction Process be created and documented for any/all new projects seeking to join LFN so that all reviews would be consistent and equitable. The TAC at that time requested to lead the creation of that process from the Governing Board (GB) and that request was granted. The TAC then determined that it would take until September or so before it would be complete with the creation of the process. That left the TF project in limbo for a signification period of time. So the GB in June "Conditionally Approved" the induction of TF into LFN with the requirement that TF go through a re-induction once the Induction process was in place. The TAC finished their work and produced the following two artifacts to guide inductions [0][1]. The TF project has filled out the Data Template here [2]. I'm not sure exactly what the TAC's request is to the ONAP community. For that, I defer to Casey and Cathrine as I was unable to attend the meeting where this request was apparently made. I hope this helps. [0]https://logs.opendaylight.org/releng/vex-yul-odl-jenkins-1/lfn-process-rtd-verify-any/26/html/lifecycle/project_data_template.html [1]https://logs.opendaylight.org/releng/vex-yul-odl-jenkins-1/lfn-process-rtd-verify-any/26/html/principles.html [2]https://gerrit.linuxfoundation.org/infra/#/c/12880/ Best, Phil. DRAFT

  6. Community Discussion, Email threads From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> On Behalf Of Chaker Al Hakim Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 6:44 PM To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org Cc: Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac Thanks Phil. Perhaps we should put this effort on hold until everyone has had a chance to weigh in on it. Regards, Chaker (10) Chaker (11) Brian (12) From: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Brian Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 8:50 AM To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org Cc: Casey Cain <ccain@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Review Tungsten Fabric proposal (formelyOpenContrail) #tac We are in the review cycle for the TF official inclusion and the ONAP TSC Chair votes for the ONAP community on the LFN TAC so ... Chaker volunteered to do the analysis for ONAP Community on how we should vote. I think this come up next Wednesday for a vote in LFN TAC. Brian DRAFT

  7. Summary • Tungsten Fabric submitted an application to LFN to become an official TAC project (i.e. “Official/Mature LFN project” status), a.k.a. “Re-induction” - See https://gerrit.linuxfoundation.org/infra/#/c/12880/ • The process for this re-induction has been officially established by the TAC. • TF has submitted the official application according to that established process. • Now we are in a period for community feedback • We can raise issues or concerns, but please read the process first. • I believe this status does come with benefits, i.e. more funding from LFN. Currently, the 4 TAC projects (fd.io, ODL, ONAP and OPNFV) have the majority of funding in LFN (TF won’t be able to use that fund until it is admitted; Once admitted, they get equal consideration, I believe this to be correct) DRAFT

  8. Conclusion/Recommendation • I believe that the ONAP should support TF’s admission for the following reasons (as long as TF becomes an open community): • LFN membership can make sure TF has some diversity • TF also balances ODL and provide the Opensource community with more choices • Please review the application and the email threads yourself to make sure that the TF policies listed ensure openness and also provide a framework for moving away from one-vendor control so its not seen as a Juniper-only Project. 4. Regarding the section “Project Functionality”, can we re-enforce the message about prioritization of cross-collaboration, TF being complementary to the “LFN Suite” instead of duplicated efforts amongst the different Open Source Communities. So developers can work together instead of compete to each other. Nevertheless TF could be considered as an additional controller as an alternative to what it is currently proposed in ONAP today (Contrail, ODL, etc.) in order to offer additional flexibility to the operators. DRAFT

More Related