Hi Michael,
As far as I know, besides GSO, NFVO also uses BPEL, I'm not aware of any use of
other workflow both .
The main reason is that they don't have the capability to support the OPENO use
case.
The declarative workflow is suitable for simple scenarios,but it can't meet
most of the requirements of Telecom cloud service, which is usually across
multiple data center and need interactions with entities outside of the TOSCA
service template.
For example, when carriers deploy the vCPE service for a residential
subscriber, the user plan vnf, such as VSTB, should be located in the data
center which is the most close to the user to minimize latency. To achieve
that, the workflow need to ask a placement service which know the resource and
geographic info of all the data centers to get the best placement location to
create the vnf.
It's a very common use case for NFV, Neither declarative workflow nor the
imperative workflow inside TOSCA can accomplish this job because obviously the
global placement service is an external service out of TOSCA template, so it
can't be invoked by the declarative or internal workflow of TOSCA. It can't be
implemented as a node operation as well because the node operation is provided
by vnf vendor, who have no idea of the Orchestration system components.
Thanks,
Huabing
原始邮件
发件人:
MichaelBrenner
收件人:Lingli Deng
抄送:onap-discuss JANA,RITTWIK (RITTWIK) [email protected]
日期:
2017-04-27 00:58:12
主题:Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th
Lingli, all:
I though we are now discussing ONAP and how to improve it, and not Open-O?
Furthermore, ONAP is indeed using BPEL/BPMN workflows, but that is as part of
the MSO. MSO may decide to delegate certain portion of the orchestration to a
TOSCA-based orchestration engine, and what is delegated to such engine may have
to use its own internal/native workflows.
The real question here is: are we trying to leverage the best of all we have
available, or are we trying to keep replicating the status-quo forever.
Regardless of the answer, I find it that it is a very narrow perspective if we
only want to discuss workflows in the context of what was implemented initially
in Open-O or ECOMP, instead of opening a broader discussion of what makes sense
where in the overall architecture.
Best regards,
Michael
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Lingli Deng
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michael,
You may consult your gigaspace's colleage, as my recollection, native workflow
proposed by gigaspaces was turned down by the consensus of the OPENO
community, we decided to use BPMN/BPEL type of workflow, you can also find out
the workflow in MSO /APPC of OPENCOMP are also using BPMN/DG
Thanks,
Lingli
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Brenner
Sent: 2017年4月26日 11:09
To: denghui (L) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) <[email protected]>
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th
But no TOSCA native workflows ... why?
Michael
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:03 PM, denghui (L) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your suggestion, workflow is already covered in the Shitao’s
session, they will discuss
1) OPENCOMP Workflow
2) OPEN-O Workflow.
Best regards,
DENG Hui
From: Michael Brenner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:14 AM
To: Amir Levy
Cc: JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) Nguyenphu, Thinh (Nokia - US/Irving) denghui (L)
[email protected] Nati Shalom [email protected]
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th
I'll be happy to attend and take part in the discussion and would like to
suggest to add workflows to the agenda ...a topic which I offer to moderate.
Best regards,
Michael
On Apr 20, 2017 4:51 PM, "Amir Levy" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks DENG for leading this initiative.
I would love to share few quick links to prepare for this meeting:
We have a two parts video that provides TOSCA in practice training : Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMkqLI6o-58 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGmpi--7-A
And Michael Brenner for ETSI/NFV and TOSCA has recently drafted a in-depth
comparison between model-driven and task-driven workflows:
http://getcloudify.org/brochures/tosca-workflows-Apr-2017.pdf
— amir
[email protected] +1 408 916 8572
On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Nguyenphu, Thinh (Nokia - US/Irving)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Rittwik and DENG,
Is modeling discussion covering network service and VNF descriptors? Or it is
broader to cover all of the ONAP functions?
Yes, I am planning to attend.
Thinh
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of denghui (L)
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:35 AM
To: denghui (L) <[email protected]> [email protected]
[email protected]
Cc: JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) <[email protected]>
Subject: [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th
Hello all
We are happy to let you know that we are hosting a modeling session on Friday,
May 5th, AT&T Lab.
9:00-10:30 Shitao moderate: TOSCA NFV Profile
10:30-12:00 Rittwik moderate: AT&T Parser
13:30-16:00 DengHui moderate: Modelling & Opendeployment
Please kindly help to let us know if you are interested in joining us, so that
we can book a proper meeting room for our discussion
Best regards,
Rittwik & DENG Hui
_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
--
Michael Brenner, Chief Architect NFV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: +1-732-895-5772
http://getcloudify.org
@cloudifysource
--
Michael Brenner, Chief Architect NFV
M: +1-732-895-5772
http://getcloudify.org
@cloudifysource_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
