Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This is a proposal for a new Blueprint Species addition to the existing Integrated Cloud Native NFV (ICN) blueprint. The contributors to this blueprint are the same as the original ICN blueprint (with some changes), and we will seek more members to join the blueprint.

Use Case Attributes

Description

Informational

Type

New


Blueprint Family

Integrated Cloud Native NFV (ICN)


Use Case

End to end connectivity using Private LTE/5G over the CBRS band 


Blueprint proposed Name

Private LTE/5G ICN blueprint


Initial POD Cost (capex)

Same as ICN — 50K minimum


Scale & Type

Same as ICN — Minimum of 4 Xeon Servers + 1 Xeon server as genesis 


Applications

RAN+Core (initially LTE, eventually 5G), and reuse of existing ICN applications: ML/DL Analytics, EdgeXFoundry and 360 degree Video streaming


Power Restrictions

TBD


Orchestration

Same as ICN —

Infrastructure Orchestration

  • Bare Metal Provisioning :  ironic with Metal3 controlled by Cluster API
  • Kubernetes provisioning :  KuD.
  • Centralized controller:  With Cluster-API
  • Docker for containers and Virtlet for VMs

Service Orchestration : ONAP with AF integration

MEC framework: OpenNESS

Site orchestrator :  Kubernetes upstream

Traffic Orchestration within a cluster: ISTIO

Traffic orchestration with external entities : ISTIO-ingress and ISTIO-egress with MCDeployment

Knative for function orchestration

Additional platform component: Open source UPF


SDN

Same as ICN — OVN, SRIOV, Flannel; additionally Tungsten Fabric


Workload Type

Containers and functions


Additional Details

Our roadmap will be:

  • Private LTE
  • Private 5G Option 5 (i.e. LTE radio + 5GC)
  • Private 5G SA (i.e. 5G ratio + 5GC)

Use cases:

  • Manufacturing
  • Farming
  • Healthcare
  • V2X
  • Others



As per the Akraino Community process and directed by TSC, a blueprint which has only one nominee for Project Technical Lead (PTL) will be the elected lead once at least one committer seconds the nomination after the close of nominations.  If there are two or more, an election will take place.

Contributors:

Committer

Committer Company

Committer Contact Info

Committer Bio / Contributions

Committer Picture

Self Nominate for PTL (Y/N) Ends 13 May 2020

Prem Sankar GopannanLumina Networks



Yes
Ravi ChunduruVerizonEnd user requirements guidance

Manoj MouryaOrange
End user requirements and contributions

Hakim AchouriAirbus
End user requirements guidance

Vikram BalimidiCloudlyte - Tata CommunicationsVikram BalimidiEnd-user requirements and guidance

Vineet AnshumanCloudlyte - Tata Communicationsvineet anshumanEnd-user requirements and guidance

Alain SoleilT-Mobile USAlain SoleilEnd-User requirements and guidance

Vincent SeetGlobe Telecom, Inc.Vincent SeetEnd-User requirements and guidance

Srinivasa AddepalliIntel

With MICN as the basis for this,  my colleagues and I at Intel will help in following:

  • MICN integration
  • SD-EWAN CNF
  • OVN-for-K8s-NFV network controller
  • ONAP

Will work with other team members in adding new controllers in ONAP to auto program the UPF & adjacent gateway micro-service to steer the traffic to locally offloaded applications.



Amar Kapadia

Aarna NetworksONAP

Sriram RupanaguntaAarna NetworksSriram RupanaguntaONAP

Ramki KrishnanAdvisor, VMware


Pradnesh DangeRebacaTesting

Sivasothy SHANMUGALINGAMIndependent Sivasothy ShanmugalingamUPF and SMF


Mansoor KhanWavelabs.aiMansoor KhanSystems Integration

Parthiban NWavelabs.aiParthiban Nalliamudali

Orchestration

CI/CD, DevOps



Mohamed El GamalNetNumberMohamed El Gamal


Sukhdev KapurJuniper NetworksTSC Member of Akraino as well Tungsten Fabric

Qasim ArhamJuniper NetworksQasim ArhamTungsten Fabric Integration

Prabhjot SethiATS SystemsPrabhjot S SethiChair of Tungsten Fabric TSC

Boris RenskiFreedomFiOCN Automation Workstream Lead

Lakshmi Swetha RamisettyIndependent contributor Lakshmi Swetha Ramisetty


Isaac Manuel RajLumina NetworksIsaac Manuel RajEnd user requirements contributions

Kanagasundaram K (KKS)Independent contributorQA and Automation

Files:

Akraino ICN Private LTE_5G v8.4.pptx

EMCO Intel V2.1.pptx


  • No labels

28 Comments

  1. Amar Kapadia and Prem Sankar G


    Few changes to make it clear to the community.

    1.  Slide 8:  UPF is clearly shown as the differentiation of this BP over the MICN BP of the ICN family, it is also good to show the integration of AF with ONAP4K8s.  So, can you put "AF Integration"  along with ONAP4K8s in the "Multi Cluster Application Orchestration' level.
    2. Slide 9:  It is good if UPF and "AF integration" reflected in this picture too.  Under "NFV Components",  please put "SD-EWAN" (which is missing) and "UPF".   Under ONAP4K8s box, please put "AF Integration"


    AF integration in ONAP4K8s is used to configure traffic steering policies in UPF for redirecting the traffic to local application instances.


    Srini


  2. Sivasothy Shanmugalingam


    Glad to see that you intend to contribute on UPF.  As we have chatted earlier,  it is very important to have traffic redirection capability in the UPF.  Any help you provide to implement this in free5GC UPF or any UPF you suggest would be fantastic.  Thank you again.

  3. Srinivasa Addepalli I'm excited to participate this blueprint and will contribute VPP based UPF with redirection capability. I started looking into this feature now.I

    1. Sivasothy Shanmugalingam


      If you think it is faster to develop this in Akraino repository (for faster process related merges and targeting for this BP), let us know.  We can create the git repo in Akraino. 



    1. Sivasothy Shanmugalingam

      Agree with Amar Kapadia.  Nice and clear write up.

      This is very important to this BP: 

      1. Application Function influence on traffic routing (AF, NEF, PCF, SMF, and UPF). This feature is not supported 

      One of the BP goals is to show case the traffic steering functionality to local applications/local DN.

      In the document, you did mention about functionality related to local breakout via PDU Session Anchor2. How will you show case this without traffic routing feature?  May be some education may be required (smile).

      Note that one of the goals we have is to integrate ONAP4K8s with OpenNESS AF to create the traffic steering rules when the local micro-services are deployed.  My understanding is that OpeNESS AF talks to 5GC NEF over 3GPP API to create the rules which are expected to be finally translated to UPF via PCF and SMF.   Do you see any challenge in supporting this feature? Is it mainly related to work needed at the UPF or is it because  you are not sure whether this path is supported by free5GC NEF/PCF/SMF?

      Thanks

      Srini


      1. Srinivasa Addepalli I didnt understand the question "How will you show case this without traffic routing feature?" I added text in the document "How SMF configure UPF in order to support :" Is it Ok?

        SMF creates two rules in UPF for packet detection and forwarding. One rule is for routing to PSA 1 and other is for PSA2. 

        Regarding the  AF support, modification in SMF and UPF is zero once it is supported UL CL. Only think NEF is not available in Free5GC. In this case, I can create a basic NEF which can link PCF,SMF with AF. If so, we need to create the call flow or extract from 3GPP  how AF is going to orchestrate SMF and UPF with UL CL. This will be part of release 2 of my work.

        First release will go simply show casing the UL CL features. 


        Thanks

        1. Sivasothy Shanmugalingam

          Thank you for updating the document.  Yes, it is more clear now.  

          Just for my confirmation, would this work with the 'first release' of your work

          • Few UEs establishe the PDU sessions.
          • UEs communicate with the Internet/Cloud  based services.  
          • Some system decides that a particular Service (S1) can be offloaded to the edges.
          • Some system brought up the S1 micro-service in the Edge (where UPF is present).
          • Some system configures UPF to redirect the traffic that is destined to S1 to local micro-service for all PDU sessions.
          • Now UEs talking to S1 is being serviced by local application micro-service instead of going to Internet/Cloud.

          Is this scenario possible with what you are thinking in the first release?


          1. Srinivasa Addepalli what do you mean " Some system decides that a particular Service (S1) can be offloaded to the edge".

            Some system should be MEC orchestrator? Isnt it?

            I consider that when UE makes a PDU Session, SMF places the PFCP rules to split the traffic to local cloud. According to your story, SMF should consider update the existing PDU connection.  There is a small work to be done and tested.

            I didnt tested with many PDU sessions from many UEs. It is purely limited  with available tools. I need to build the Test Generator towards the SMF. Can I ask small help that can I get any servers in cloud for my testing?

            I updated the document with release plan so that I can do incremental development and make it clear for others.  You are looking for Release 3 (I guess).



            1. Yes, "Some system" in above is ONAP4K8s (Orchestrator).

              Thanks Sothy on details. 

  4. Sivasothy Shanmugalingam Nice writeup and good questions towards the end. We can discuss these once we get going.

  5. Prem Sankar G and Amar Kapadia

    For process subcommittee, we should have this prepared: Akraino Technical Community Document#3.3.7.1IncubationReview

    You can look at the example here:  Slide 4 of Graduation reviews (Multi-Server Cloud native NFV and App stack)

    1. Srinivasa Addepalli Thanks for the process pointers and working on the same.

    2. Updated the presentation with this table.

  6. Prem Sankar G Srinivasa Addepalli Sivasothy Shanmugalingam Pradnesh Dange The process subcommittee identified one issue — since the UPF is part of the platform, other community members must be able to validate it in their labs without requiring any proprietary software. I mentioned that for other 5GC components, we have several options: Free5GC, TIP OCN, ONF Aether. But for gNB simulator (or traffic), I was not sure. Let's discuss how to solve this as the ability to validate anything that is in the platform is an Akraino requirement.

    1. You may want to talk to Pradnesh.  One of the goals of Rebecca's test orchestration is to use it for emulating surrounding elements (SMS, gNB) to test the UPF in lab environments. 

  7. Amar Kapadia Polaris Networks has a gNB simulator and we need to check with Alakananda if they can onboard.

  8. Amar Kapadia Prem Sankar G - Per our discussion yesterday, we can use UPF components from TIP. TIP intends to open source those components. 

    Keep in mind, even if this not open sourced yet, as long as it is open sourced before our BP gets included into the release of Akraino, we should be good. In other words, Akraino TSC will not permit our BP to be included in release 4, if all the components are not open source. Hence, we can tell Process sub-committee that components used in this BP will be open sourced. As long as they are open sourced, they will be available to everybody. Hope this make sense. 


  9. Amar Kapadia Prem Sankar G I was tripple booked and could not attend process sub-committee call (I am a member of process sub-committee). Otherwise, I would have clarified this issue and we would be good. 


  10. The issue was that even if the UPF is open source, the method to validate the UPF needed to be open source. So we said we can use other open source 5G CNFs e.g. Free5GC, TIP OCN, ONF Aether etc... but the process subcommittee wanted an open source N3 traffic generator or gNB simulator as well. Rebaca is willing to provide free eval licenses to any Akraino members. If we can't find any open source solution, we can go propose this?

    1. Oh I see. That makes sense. 

    2. Amar Kapadia Sukhdev Kapur Prem Sankar G Sivasothy Shanmugalingam Pradnesh Dange

      We are discussing two things here.

      1. UPF availability
      2. Testing the UPF in any lab


      On UPF availability:  Sothy already started to work on the open source UPF with various features.  What we understand is that Sothy has taken some work that was done in UPF in VPP and enhancing it significantly to support traffic steering for local breakout.  Let us continue on this path for current release. Sothy had been giving very good confidence to us that it is highly performing with many features implemented.  

      On testing :  We shall talk to Rebecca systems to get at least few tests in open source.

  11. Srinivasa Addepalli Amar Kapadia Prem Sankar G Sukhdev Kapur Pradnesh Dange

    So far I tested with two UPFs (I-UPF with local break out and UPF) . During the registration procedure, SMF includes SDF rules for traffic steering. The basic setup is working. I need to test with many users sessions. And I need to work on second use case. Here users register wit SMF/UPF without any local breakout. So All traffic goes over UPF via I-UPF. Then, PCF decides to add SDF filters to traffic steering for local breakout. PCF will instruct SMF to do so.   

  12. Sukhdev Kapur Srinivasa Addepalli Prem Sankar G Pradnesh Dange

    Sivasothy Shanmugalingam  has found a Free5GC UE/gNB simulator and also another one https://github.com/aligungr/ue-ran-sim. Sothy, let us know which one you think might work and we can resolve the Process Subcommittee concern.

    1. Also Sivasothy Shanmugalingamgave us a demo a while back.  Same setup can be used for any lab testing too.  I guess we need to document that setup and same can be informed along with the simulators/emulators used.

  13. Amar Kapadia Srinivasa AddepalliPrem Sankar GSukhdev KapurPradnesh Dange

    I have compiled the code and produce repo based on Free5GC. Please see the repo here:

    https://bitbucket.org/sothy5/gnbsim/src/dev/

    I have not done  the functional test.


    1. Excellent job Sivasothy Shanmugalingam. I have sent this information to the Process Subcommittee to see if this resolves their concern. Thanks again!