NFV

Following Jenny's post on the Onboarding and Lifecycle Management VF Package, we propose the addition of a VF Package rating type and are looking for your feedback on this concept!

Several Service Providers have identified that a critical issue for NFV adoption and automation is the lack of industry agreement on the metadata and model for procurable NFV packages. Similarly, the vendors are confused with what to provide in their VF package due to the multitude of requests in support of different target deployment environment supported by multiple underlying infrastructures. A Telecom Italia survey of over 50 vendors uncovered more than 30 NFV Orchestrators with no clear leader in the market.

Figure 1: Multitude of orchestration environments and requirements to be supported from VF vendors

 We propose the creation of a VF Package rating type that would standardize on the levels of automation and orchestration that can be achieved from the information provided in a VF software package.

In other words, the industry could align on a set of "VF Package Type" such that each package type would provide identified and agreed type of information for SP to understand, evaluate and determine the amount of backend office process automation that could be achieved (vs manual steps) for each given VF package type.  Open-source initiatives and different MANO solutions could align themselves with a particular VF package type or provide required extensions to a VF Package type, eliminating the need for complex explanation on requirements.

If this piqued your interest I encourage you the read the contribution in IG1141B on the six package types from "Basic Virtualization Support" to "Operational Service Orchestration and Lifecycle Management Support".

Following Jenny's post on the Onboarding and Lifecycle Management VF Package, we propose the addition of a VF Package rating type and are looking for your feedback on this concept!

Several Service Providers have identified that a critical issue for NFV adoption and automation is the lack of industry agreement on the metadata and model for procurable NFV packages. Similarly, the vendors are confused with what to provide in their VF package due to the multitude of requests in support of different target deployment environment supported by multiple underlying infrastructures. A Telecom Italia survey of over 50 vendors uncovered more than 30 NFV Orchestrators with no clear leader in the market.

Figure 1: Multitude of orchestration environments and requirements to be supported from VF vendors

 We propose the creation of a VF Package rating type that would standardize on the levels of automation and orchestration that can be achieved from the information provided in a VF software package.

In other words, the industry could align on a set of "VF Package Type" such that each package type would provide identified and agreed type of information for SP to understand, evaluate and determine the amount of backend office process automation that could be achieved (vs manual steps) for each given VF package type.  Open-source initiatives and different MANO solutions could align themselves with a particular VF package type or provide required extensions to a VF Package type, eliminating the need for complex explanation on requirements.

If this piqued your interest I encourage you the read the contribution in IG1141B on the six package types from "Basic Virtualization Support" to "Operational Service Orchestration and Lifecycle Management Support".