Hi Alex
IFA does not define the HPA specific parameters until now, but the HPA
definition or implimention of ONAP model needs.
What I mean is that which specific HPA parameters are need to be modeled in
the R2. We need the inputs.
In the ONAP, we need to discuss how to define it and the projects need to
know how to impliment it.
BR
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]>
收件人：张茂鹏10030173;
抄送人：[email protected] <[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 19:26
主 题 ：RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes
and IFA011
Hi Maopeng,
First, observe that “HPA Enablement” is not a project, but a functional
requirement for R2 that is being implemented across multiple projects. This has
been discussed and approved by the TSC and affected projects have
subsequently passed the M1 and M2 milestones.
The current plan is to support the set of HPA capabilities available via
OpenStack APIs. We plan to use the vCPE VNFs that were provided by Intel for
testing purposes. Existing lab hardware can be used for this.
We are looking to convert the existing VPP VNF’s, that were built by Intel for
vCPE testing from HEAT to TOSCA and use them to test HPA. Existing test flows
can be used. Intel will provide the hardware to do the testing.
Also note that HPA enablement is meant to enable future 5G work in R3. From
this perspective, this is no different than the ONAP work to support PNFs.
Finally, HPA functionality is modeled based on the ETSI NFV IFA011 model
changes introduced and approved in v2.3.1. These model changes were introduced
based on actual VNF developer engagements with Intel, as well actual model
usage.
My expectation is that our R2 information and data models contain the right
elements and attributes to support the HPA implementation in R2.
Kind regards,
Alex Vul
Intel Corporation
From: [email protected] [mailt:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Vul, Alex <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: 答复: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM
classes and IFA011
Hi Alex
As a model contributor, join the discussion.
Could you give the specific HPA parameters and completed usecases in R2?
Does the LAB need to provide some specific hardwares to test these
features?
If we model the HPA parameters and implemented in R2, I think some real
implemented inputs are needed.
Thanks
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]>
收件人：yangxu (H) <[email protected]>jessie jewitt
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 16:48
主 题 ：Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and
IFA011
_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
Jessie, Xu
There are a few things still missing from the agreed upon model. We need to add
in items related to the HPA support. HPA is a functional requirement being
implemented in R2. We need to ensure that the agreed upon model does not
preclude the implementation of HPA.
Thank you,
Alex Vul
Intel Corporation
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of yangxu (H)
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:29 AM
To: jessie jewitt <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: [onap-discuss] 答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes
and IFA011
Hi Jessie,
For the agreement, please look at
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Design+Time+Model+Clean+Version.
The differences with IFA011 are shown in orange.
As for “vnfProductName”, the agreement is to have the same name as IFA011 for
the time being.
Best regards,
Xu
发件人: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] 代表 jessie jewitt
发送时间: 2018年2月28日 23:45
收件人: [email protected]
主题: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011
Hi-
I'm trying to understand how the IM model proposed for R2 compares to
IFA011.
When I look on this wiki:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resource+IM+Discussion+Based+on+IFA011
it looks like the IFA011 model was reviewed and decisions were made. For
example, in the VNFD, one decision was to rename vnfProductName to Name. It is
marked as "AGREED".
However, when I look at the R2 class VNFD, the attribute is still called
"vnfProductName".
Should I be ignoring the decisions made on the wiki above?
Is there another place that shows the differences between the R2 classes and
IFA011.
Thanks for your help,
Jessie_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
