Skip to content
Skip to breadcrumbs
Skip to header menu
Skip to action menu
Skip to quick search

Pages
…

Open Transport Configuration and Control Home
5G-xHaul
5G-xHaul Call-in Details & Notes

2020-07-01 5G-xHaul Meeting notes

Skip to end of metadata

Created by Alex Stancu on Jul 01, 2020

Go to start of metadata

Date

01 Jul 2020| 2am PDT | 5am EDT | 9:00 UTC | 11:00 CEST | 12:00 EEST | 14:30 IST | 17:00 CST | 18:00 JST |

Web Conference:

~~https://onf.zoom.us/j/853336915~~ -Zoom is blocked by more and more ITs.

Please use the following link: https://thorsten-heinze-telefonica-de.webex.com/join/andreas.lattoch.external

Attendees

Alex Stancu
@Andreas Lattoch
Alok Surve
Daniela Spreafico
Danilo Pala
Daniel Perez GCTIO
Eduardo Yusta
Hubing
Hsudarsa
Jorge Lopez
Jasper Yang
Leo
Ma Yong
Michael Binder
Nader Zein
Paul Parva
Pawel Krecicki
Petr Jurcik
Prathiba
Roberto Servadio
Shuzhan
Thomas Schulze
Thorsten Heinze
Yossi
Martin Skorupski

(please feel free to correct, update your names Thank you very much!!!)

Info to:

Tracy Van Brakle

Goals

going forward

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
00:00	chair topic		no update
00:00	Admin		Next meetings 2020-07-08: Martin Skorupski 2020-07-15: Martin Skorupski 2020-07-22: Martin Skorupski
	Wire interface errors in modelling leaf-lists in config and status	Thorsten Heinze Alex Stancu Martin Skorupski	Issues are documented in openBackhaul GitHub: https://github.com/openBackhaul/wireInterface/issues/27 https://github.com/openBackhaul/wireInterface/issues/28 https://github.com/openBackhaul/wireInterface/issues/29 https://github.com/openBackhaul/wireInterface/issues/30
00:11	TransmitterEquipment	Pawel Krecick Thorsten Heinze	Proposal to align modeling of AirEquipment with WireEquipment (follow link to see the email) The deadline for commenting was reached yesterday. Thorsten Heinzewill consolidate the comments. The application needs a clear reference between the LTP and where to interface it at the outside of the device. This number or text needs to be put into the model. The current proposal is to use the label attribute (either in equipment or connector). Michael Binder pointed out that label is used usually by the operator for other purposes and we should use the name attribute for our purpose. In the UML, name attribute has a multiplicity of min 1. We need feedback from Nigel Davis and Martin Skorupski to see which of the attributes (name or label) would be more suited. Email sent to Nigel about this is here.
	TransmitterEquipment		LTP has an accessPort reference, and it is a reference to a pin group. Equipment is referencing the connector. We should not model all the pins and pin groups. We should model where the RJ45 or SFP should be connected. Proposal was to use the accessPort to reference a connector or we add a new attribute which references the connector. Thorsten Heinze would prefer adding a new attribute "_connector", next to the "_accessPort", and keep the old "_accessPort" for referencing pin groups, if needed in the future. No other opinions. Physical-port-reference in the LTP points to the equipment. Originally it is not pointing to the Equipment class, but it is a String. Question: use this attribute to point to the connector? or keep it pointing to the equipment. Or should we change it back to String and it should contain a label or a reference to a connector. We need to define the option that we want to use. Thorsten Heinze, it should be as close as possible to the CoreModel, it will be better when updating to a new version of the CoreModel. Maybe we should keep the physical-port-reference as a String (original definition) and use it to put the (label) text located on the outside of the device. This means we do not need to model the connector. @Pawel points out that we need to define what the String should look like, and all vendors should align in this regards. It should contain information about rack, slot, port etc.
	ordered-by	Alex Stancu	Martin Skorupski Convert email into wiki.
00:00	VLAN	Thorsten Heinze	VLAN Model with reduced scope. review period for documents from last August will end 2020-06-09 https://github.com/openBackhaul/vlanInterface/tree/tsp https://github.com/openBackhaul/vlanFd/tree/tsp https://github.com/openBackhaul/vlanFc/tree/tsp Ongoing work - on Agenda of next weeks....
00:00	RMON	Andreas Lattoch	Martin Skorupski Add link to ongoing discussion... on Agenda of next

00:00	dropping-behavior	Thorsten Heinze	dropping-behavior-kind on device/switch level - link to issue AI: Danilo Pala, Michael Binder Daniela Spreafico: Please provide options how to solve the issue and a recommendation for discussion next week. AI: Martin SkorupskiWork out a proposal to be discussed next week. based on the proposal made in the issue: Proposal: The dropping-behavior-kind shall become part of a Profile, which can be instantiated multiple times, in case the device allows independently adjusting the dropping-behavior-kind per interface, or just a single time, in case the device allows adjusting the dropping-behavior-kind just on device/switch level. further details should be agreed. A new profile type should be created, called "PROFILE_NAME_TYPE_DROPPING_PROFILE The profile details are just extensible ENUM (yang: identity) similar like "dropping-behavior-kind-type" ethernet-container-capability: available-dropping-behavior-kind-list will be of type "identity-ref" to the PROFILE_NAME_TYPE_DROPPING_PROFILE ethernet-container-configuration: dropping-behavior-kind will be of type be of type "identity-ref" an entry in ethernet-container-capability/available-dropping-behavior-kind-list The pointers from ethernet-container-capability and ethernet-container-configuration allow the following use cases The EthernetSwitch (FD) allows only one Profile, all capabilities and all configuration are "static" because only one Profile exists. Any dynamic configuration happens in the Profile itself. Several Profiles with different configuration/behavior exists - ("static profiles"). Any configuration happens only by switching the profile. a combination of a) and b), which is not recommended due to unnecessary complexity. Conclusion during the discussion: investigate in adding another ethernet-container-capability attribute to express, if the LTP can, must, must-not follow the configuration on device (forwarding-domain?) level creating a device (forwarding-domain) PAC to uml:specify (yang:augment) ETH-Switch capabilities and configuration Further discussion on agenda for 2020-06-10.
00:00	ComboPort	Roberto Servadio	See contributions: https://wiki.opennetworking.org/download/attachments/265093121/ALCp2e_Equipment_Management.pptx?api=v2 https://wiki.opennetworking.org/download/attachments/265093121/ethernet-combo-port-as-fc-switch.pptx?api=v2 Switching the port by management interface → CoreModel solution is ForwardingConstruct with FC-Switch. AI: Martin SkorupskiShow how this works with CoreModel 1.4
END
0min	UUID		Status: discussion on-hold core-model allows definition of both Logical Termination Points (interfaces), but also connections Forwarding Domain: either connection inside the same device connections outside devices Link: any type of link, not only microwave Forwarding Construct: concrete forwarding between two or more LTPs / ports unidirectional / bidirectional core-model is also suitable for representing entire Networks, not only a Device this means that Universally Unique IDs are required Devices cannot get the UUIDs from outside, they need to be generated by the device, and cannot be overwritten from outside Devices are unaware by their surroundings (the network), so it cannot know if a UUID is already used by some other interface in other devices IETF defines how to create UUIDs, and the core-model references this RFC we need UUIDs for documenting the network we cannot write the UUIDs in the device, the device needs to create it the device does not have a network wide view this is needed because of the Planning the network Possible solutions: the device generates whatever, the IDs are retrieved and a mapping table is maintained we prescribe a method/algorithm that is implemented in the device for creating UUIDs (which become predictable): using some prefix which is known during the implementation time of the device - (e.g. MAC address of the Management interface); vendor sends info about Order no. and MAC addr. to the operator and the Planning will be done with these prefixed values → less complex than a field technician configuring the prefix on the device with some dongle fixed UUID with prefix and postfix Suggestions: use the Device name instead of the MAC addr. clean-up application that handles the changing of MAC addresses Out of time, we need to follow up: proposal, next week Tuesday 09:00 CET -- Notes from 08 Apr 2020 Discussion about UUID and Links/Asszosations/References between object classes ODL MountPoint is and association to a NetConf server - some NetConf servers representing some times the microwave model.

Action items