[User-committee] Telcom Working Group
Barrett, Carol L
carol.l.barrett at intel.com
Sun Oct 26 16:58:59 UTC 2014
Good Morning All - To me it sounds like there are different areas of focus:
* NFV Subteam: Develop NFV capabilities in OpenStack.
* Telco Working Group: Address the performance and scale issues within the current OpenStack capabilities.
I think bringing the community members together on Thursday to discuss this and decide how to work together is a good next step.
See you all there.
Carol
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordon [mailto:sgordon at redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:21 PM
To: amitry at gmail.com
Cc: user-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [User-committee] Telcom Working Group
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Mitry" <amitry at gmail.com>
> To: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
>
> If you think that there is enough overlap I am up for your suggestion
> of keeping this within the existing group, I'll encourage all the
> operators that were part of the original discussion to join and we can
> see where it goes from there.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
Looking at the schedule the session [1] has been updated to an Ops Summit session which seems like the right place for all parties to gather - both those from the existing group and any new participants, I will float this during the NFV subteam meeting. As part of the change it appears to have moved to Thursday morning, given that it is worth highlighting that the Nova team have set aside some time to discuss NFV-related proposals generated by the sub team and others that fall within the scope of that project on Wednesday afternoon [2].
Thanks,
Steve
[1] http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/b3ccf1464e335b703fc126f068142792
[2] http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/aa14a2bd2a4c1afa1aa24a60c3131fcc
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Andrew Mitry" <amitry at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I spoke with Carol today and wanted to detail what the original
> > > thought around the telco working group was. At the Atlanta summit
> > > we saw a proliferation of vendors trying to address the
> > > telco/service provider
> > space
> > > and much of the value add they were claiming to offer was around
> > > making OpenStack operate at "carrier grade" scale with key
> > > functionality such as IPv6. When I discussed this with my peers
> > > at DT, Orange, TWC and AT&T we agreed that would rather work
> > > towards maturing OpenStack by providing feedback and develop support directly in the community.
> > >
> > > There are many use cases that are unique to telco/service
> > > providers that don't always get represented in the community as
> > > much as we thought they should. Some examples maybe IPv6, support
> > > for apps with high connections per second (DNS, Voice), high
> > > bandwidth apps (CDN, Video). We were
> > hoping
> > > to flesh these use cases out in the working group and coordinate
> > > how we could bring the appropriate developer support and operator
> > > feedback to
> > move
> > > things along.
> > >
> > > We did see this working group as primarily operator rather than
> > > vendor driven, but vendors of course would be welcome.
> > >
> > > I hope that helps provide some context.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > What I am still looking for is some explanation of how this new
> > group would differ from the existing one, and as importantly if the
> > answer is not significantly what the barriers were to operator
> > participation in the existing group? The issues you outline above
> > actually overlap with the goals the existing effort more so than Carol's original outline.
> >
> > The BoF meetings where the existing group was formed in Atlanta were
> > well attended by operators, equipment providers, and vendors (and
> > this is reflected on the membership page) though it would admittedly
> > have been great to see more participation particularly from
> > operators throughout the cycle.
> >
> > If the only issue is who facilitates the group I am (very) open to
> > someone else taking that role, but it is important that whoever does
> > facilitate understands how to productively engage the development community.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I spoke with Carol on the phone earlier to try and clarify the
> > situation
> > > > but wanted to ensure my thoughts are recorded on the list as
> > > > well. By
> > way
> > > > of background I currently facilitate the existing NFV sub team
> > > > with the help of a couple of others (volunteers welcome!) which
> > > > consists of
> > people
> > > > from service providers, network equipment providers, and
> > > > OpenStack
> > vendors
> > > > interested in this space:
> > > >
> > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV
> > > >
> > > > It's thus far been primarily focussed on identifying use
> > > > cases/requirements for NFV, turning these into actionable
> > > > OpenStack blueprints, and finally implementing these. This
> > > > effort started in
> > Atlanta,
> > > > made some progress in Juno, and is now hoping to regroup in
> > > > Paris to
> > drive
> > > > further improvements in Kilo.
> > > >
> > > > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > > > Subject: [User-committee] Telcom Working Group
> > > > > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:28:48 +0000
> > > > > From: Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
> > > > > To: user-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > > > <user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi All – I’m glad to see the interest in forming a Telco Work group.
> > I’d
> > > > > like to propose a charter and scope as a starting point for
> > discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > Charter (if one is already in development pls let me know):
> > > > >
> > > > > * Foster discussion amongst Telco users of OpenStack to share BKMs,
> > > > > resolve issues, etc.
> > > > > * Gather information on add’l features, functions, capabilities,
> > > > > services needed to increase OpenStack deployments by Telco
> > > > > users
> > and
> > > > > engage OpenStack community developers to discuss/implement
> > > > > * Understand business, market and ecosystem barriers to OpenStack
> > > > > deployments and work with the community to create action plans to
> > > > > address them.
> > > >
> > > > As I may have indicated above I see (1) and (2) as largely being
> > > > the combination of the efforts of the existing group and ETSI
> > > > NFV (see
> > > >
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/c/c7/NFV%2814%29000154r2_NFV_LS_
> > to_OpenStack.pdf
> > > > for the latest copy of the OpenStack gap analysis provided by
> > > > ETSI
> > NFV).
> > > > How other initiatives like OPNFV might fit into this is unknown
> > > > but it seems like (3) is the item raised that is currently not
> > > > directly
> > addressed
> > > > in the context of OpenStack at least by the Foundation, the
> > > > Board, or community driven initiatives like the existing working group.
> > > >
> > > > It's not immediately clear whether addressing this requires a
> > completely
> > > > new working group, and the inherent confusion from having two
> > > > groups working in the same space in the same community or some
> > > > way to address within the auspices of existing frameworks with
> > > > some loose but defined coupling to the requirement
> > > > identification and development activities occurring in the community.
> > > >
> > > > > Scope:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Include the current NFV Work Group into this team bringing
> > community
> > > > > developers
> > > >
> > > > It's important to note that it can't be assumed that developers
> > > > from
> > the
> > > > existing community will necessarily follow, particularly if the
> > > > effort
> > is
> > > > seen to be too marketing/business centric and a distraction from
> > actually
> > > > implementing the required functionality. Building a developer
> > > > community around this space has been non-trivial precisely
> > > > because of the gap
> > between
> > > > the marketing hype around NFV and the current realities of
> > implementation.
> > > > I understand the desire to make the marketing story more
> > > > specific to OpenStack, but simply wanted to highlight that if
> > > > there is one thing
> > NFV
> > > > can't be accused of it's not having enough marketing!
> > > >
> > > > Certainly when I raised the topic in the weekly meeting on
> > > > Wednesday
> > there
> > > > was some scepticism about any attempt to combine efforts here
> > distracting
> > > > from laying out design and implementation priorities for Kilo
> > > > which is front and centre for the existing group. The reason I
> > > > had raised it
> > however
> > > > remains valid, per some conversation on the community list it
> > > > appears
> > to be
> > > > more difficult at this venue to informally obtain space for BoF
> > > > style activities then it has been in the past.
> > > >
> > > > In Atlanta we used one of the development pods but due to the
> > > > number of interested parties this proved quite difficult to
> > > > manage, it was also
> > hard
> > > > to identify exactly where we would be and what time until we
> > > > were on
> > the
> > > > ground at the event. We got plenty of feedback that there was
> > > > not
> > enough
> > > > notice for everyone to attend.
> > > >
> > > > For this reason if there is consensus that there really does
> > > > need to
> > be a
> > > > separate effort to address the marketing/business side of the
> > > > coin I
> > would
> > > > still be interested in the idea of co-locating in the space
> > > > scheduled
> > for
> > > > this working group on the Wednesday afternoon and effectively
> > splitting the
> > > > room. This would allow all of those interested in this space to
> > > > attend
> > a
> > > > single venue, which we can get out in advance, and self select
> > > > which
> > area
> > > > they are interested in assisting with.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > > * Create a Marketing/Business team in the work group to work on
> > > > > messaging framework, customer whitepapers, reference
> > architectures,
> > > > > etc. This group could also interact with OPNFV, ETSI NFV
> > > > > and
> > other
> > > > > groups where there’s common interests.
> > > > > * Create an Ecosystem team in the work group to develop the
> > > > > Marketplace and create reference materials to support OpenStack
> > > > > deployments
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there interest in meeting in Paris to kick-off this work group?
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > User-committee mailing list
> > > > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committ
> > > > ee
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Gordon, RHCE
> > Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
> >
>
--
Steve Gordon, RHCE
Sr. Technical Product Manager,
Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
_______________________________________________
User-committee mailing list
User-committee at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
More information about the User-committee
mailing list