| .. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution |
| .. 4.0 International License. |
| .. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| .. Copyright 2017-2018 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. |
| |
| 1. Introduction |
| =============== |
| |
| The ONAP project addresses a rising need for a common platform for |
| telecommunication, cable, and cloud operators—and their solution |
| providers—to deliver differentiated network services on demand, |
| profitably and competitively, while leveraging existing investments. |
| |
| Prior to ONAP, operators of large networks have been challenged to keep |
| up with the scale and cost of manual changes required to implement new |
| service offerings, from installing new data center equipment to, in some |
| cases, upgrading on-premises customer equipment. Many are seeking to |
| exploit SDN and NFV to improve service velocity, simplify equipment |
| interoperability and integration, and reduce overall CapEx and OpEx |
| costs. In addition, the current, highly fragmented management landscape |
| makes it difficult to monitor and guarantee service-level agreements |
| (SLAs). |
| |
| ONAP is addressing these problems by developing global and massive scale |
| (multi-site and multi-VIM) orchestration capabilities for both physical |
| and virtual network elements. It facilitates service agility by |
| providing a common set of Northbound REST APIs that are open and |
| interoperable, and by supporting YANG and TOSCA data models. ONAP’s |
| modular and layered nature improves interoperability and simplifies |
| integration, allowing it to support multiple VNF environments by |
| integrating with multiple VIMs, VNFMs, SDN Controllers, and even legacy |
| equipment. This approach allows network and cloud operators to optimize |
| their physical and virtual infrastructure for cost and performance; at |
| the same time, ONAP’s use of standard models reduces integration and |
| deployment costs of heterogeneous equipment, while minimizing management |
| fragmentation. ONAP exists to instantiate and operate VNFs. Typical |
| operator networks are expected to support multiple instances of hundreds |
| of different types of VNFs. ONAP’s consolidated VNF requirements |
| publication is a significant deliverable to enable commercial |
| development of ONAP-compliant VNFs. |
| |
| The ONAP platform allows end user organizations and their network/cloud |
| providers to collaboratively instantiate network elements and services |
| in a dynamic, closed-loop process, with real-time response to actionable |
| events. In order to design, engineer, plan, bill and assure these |
| dynamic services, there are three major requirements: |
| |
| - A robust design framework that allows specification of the service in |
| all aspects – modeling the resources and relationships that make up |
| the service, specifying the policy rules that guide the service |
| behavior, specifying the applications, analytics and closed-loop |
| events needed for the elastic management of the service. |
| |
| - An orchestration and control framework (Service Orchestrator and |
| Controllers) that is recipe/policy-driven to provide automated |
| instantiation of the service when needed and managing service demands |
| in an elastic manner. |
| |
| - An analytic framework that closely monitors the service behavior |
| during the service lifecycle based on the specified design, analytics |
| and policies to enable response as required from the control framework, |
| to deal with situations ranging from those that require healing to those |
| that require scaling of the resources to elastically adjust to demand |
| variations. |
| |
| To achieve this, ONAP decouples the details of specific services and |
| technologies from the common information models, core orchestration |
| platform and generic management engines (for discovery, provisioning, |
| assurance etc). Furthermore, it marries the speed and style of a |
| DevOps/NetOps approach with the formal models and processes operators |
| require to introduce new services and technologies. It leverages |
| cloud-native technologies including Kubernetes to manage and rapidly |
| deploy the ONAP platform and related components. This is in stark |
| contrast to traditional OSS/Management software platform architectures, |
| which hardcoded services and technologies, and required lengthy software |
| development and integration cycles to incorporate changes. |
| |
| The ONAP Platform enables product/service independent capabilities for |
| design, creation and lifecycle management, in accordance with the |
| following foundational principles: |
| |
| - Ability to dynamically introduce full service lifecycle orchestration |
| (design, provisioning and operation) and service API for new services |
| & technologies without the need for new platform software releases or |
| without affecting operations for the existing services. |
| |
| - Carrier-grade scalability including horizontal scaling (linear |
| scale-out) and distribution to support large number of services and |
| large networks. |
| |
| - Metadata-driven and policy-driven architecture to ensure flexible and |
| automated ways in which capabilities are used and delivered. |
| |
| - The architecture shall enable sourcing best-in-class components. |
| |
| - Common capabilities are ‘developed’ once and ‘used’ many times. |
| |
| - Core capabilities shall support many diverse services and |
| infrastructures. |
| |
| - The architecture shall support elastic scaling as needs grow or |
| shrink. |
| |
| **Figure 1: ONAP Platform** |
| |
| |image0| |
| |
| 2. ONAP Architecture |
| ==================== |
| |
| The platform provides the common functions (e.g., data collection, |
| control loops, metadata recipe creation, policy/recipe distribution, |
| etc.) necessary to construct specific behaviors. To create a service or |
| operational capability, it is necessary to develop |
| service/operations-specific service definitions, data collection, |
| analytics, and policies (including recipes for corrective/remedial |
| action) using the ONAP Design Framework Portal. Figure 2 provides a |
| high-level view of the ONAP architecture and microservices-based |
| platform components, including all ONAP projects. |
| |
| **Figure 2: ONAP Platform components with projects (Beijing Release)** |
| |
| |image1| |
| |
| In Figure 3 below, we provide a functional view of the architecture, |
| which highlights the role of key new components: |
| |
| 1. The Beijing release standardizes and improves northbound |
| interoperability for the ONAP Platform using the **External API** |
| component (1) |
| |
| 2. **OOM** provides the ability to manage cloud-native installation and |
| deployments to Kubernetes-managed cloud environments. |
| |
| 3. ONAP Common Services now manage more complex and optimized |
| topologies. **MUSIC** allows ONAP to scale to multi-site |
| environments to support global scale infrastructure requirements. The |
| ONAP Optimization Framework (OOF) provides a declarative, |
| policy-driven approach for creating and running optimization |
| applications like Homing/Placement, and Change Management Scheduling |
| Optimization. |
| |
| 4. **Information Model and framework utilities** have evolved to |
| harmonize the topology, workflow, and policy models from a number of |
| SDOs including ETSI NFV MANO, TM Forum SID, ONF Core, OASIS TOSCA, |
| IETF and MEF. |
| |
| |image2| Figure 3. Functional view of the ONAP architecture |
| |
| 3. Microservices Support |
| ======================== |
| |
| As a cloud-native application that consists of numerous services, ONAP |
| requires sophisticated initial deployment as well as post-deployment |
| management. It needs to be highly reliable, scalable, secure and easy to |
| manage. Also, the ONAP deployment needs to be flexible to suit the |
| different scenarios and purposes for various operator environments. |
| Users may also want to select part of the ONAP components to integrate |
| into their own systems. To achieve all these goals, ONAP is designed as |
| a microservices based system, with all components released as Docker |
| containers. |
| |
| The ONAP Operations Manager |
| (`OOM <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Operations+Manager+Project>`__) |
| is responsible for orchestrating the end-to-end lifecycle management and |
| monitoring of ONAP components. OOM uses Kubernetes to provide CPU |
| efficiency and platform deployment. In addition, OOM helps enhance ONAP |
| platform maturity by providing scalability and resiliency enhancements |
| to the components it manages. |
| |
| |image3| |
| |
| OOM is the lifecycle manager of the ONAP platform and uses the |
| Kubernetes container management system and Consul to provide the |
| following functionality: |
| |
| 1. **Deployment** - with built-in component dependency management |
| (including multiple clusters, federated deployments across sites, and |
| anti-affinity rules) |
| |
| 2. **Configuration** - unified configuration across all ONAP |
| components |
| |
| 3. **Monitoring** - real-time health monitoring feeding to a Consul GUI |
| and Kubernetes |
| |
| 4. **Restart** - failed ONAP components are restarted automatically |
| |
| 5. **Clustering and Scaling** - cluster ONAP services to enable seamless |
| scaling |
| |
| 6. **Upgrade** - change-out containers or configuration with little or |
| no service impact |
| |
| 7. **Deletion** - cleanup individual containers or entire deployments |
| |
| OOM supports a wide variety of cloud infrastructures to suit your |
| individual requirements. |
| |
| The Microservices Bus (MSB) component project provides some fundamental |
| microservices support such as service registration/discovery, external |
| API gateway, internal API gateway, client software development kit |
| (SDK), and Swagger SDK to help ONAP projects evolve towards the |
| microservice direction. MSB is integrated with OOM to provide |
| transparent service registration for ONAP microservices, it also |
| supports OpenStack(Heat) and bare metal deployment. |
| |
| 4. Portal |
| ========= |
| |
| ONAP delivers a single, consistent user experience to both design-time |
| and run-time environments, based on the user’s role. Role changes are |
| are configured within a single ONAP instance instance. |
| |
| This user experience is managed by the ONAP Portal, which provides |
| access to design, analytics and operational control/administration |
| functions via a shared, role-based menu or dashboard. The portal |
| architecture provides web-based capabilities such as application |
| onboarding and management, centralized access management, and |
| dashboards, as well as hosted application widgets. |
| |
| The portal provides an SDK to enable multiple development teams to |
| adhere to consistent UI development requirements by taking advantage of |
| built-in capabilities (Services/API/UI controls), tools and |
| technologies. ONAP also provides a Command Line Interface (CLI) for |
| operators who require it (e.g., to integrate with their scripting |
| environment). ONAP SDKs enable operations/security, third parties (e.g., |
| vendors and consultants), and other experts to continually |
| define/redefine new collection, analytics, and policies (including |
| recipes for corrective/remedial action) using the ONAP Design Framework |
| Portal. |
| |
| 5. Design-time Framework |
| ======================== |
| |
| The design-time framework is a comprehensive development environment |
| with tools, techniques, and repositories for defining/ describing |
| resources, services, and products. |
| |
| The design time framework facilitates reuse of models, further improving |
| efficiency as more and more models become available. Resources, |
| services, products, and their management and control functions can all |
| be modeled using a common set of specifications and policies (e.g., rule |
| sets) for controlling behavior and process execution. Process |
| specifications automatically sequence instantiation, delivery and |
| lifecycle management for resources, services, products and the ONAP |
| platform components themselves. Certain process specifications (i.e., |
| ‘recipes’) and policies are geographically distributed to optimize |
| performance and maximize autonomous behavior in federated cloud |
| environments. |
| |
| Service Design and Creation (SDC) provides tools, techniques, and |
| repositories to define/simulate/certify system assets as well as their |
| associated processes and policies. Each asset is categorized into one of |
| four asset groups: Resource, Services, Products, or Offers. |
| |
| The SDC environment supports diverse users via common services and |
| utilities. Using the design studio, product and service designers |
| onboard/extend/retire resources, services and products. Operations, |
| Engineers, Customer Experience Managers, and Security Experts create |
| workflows, policies and methods to implement Closed Loop |
| Automation/Control and manage elastic scalability. |
| |
| To support and encourage a healthy VNF ecosystem, ONAP provides a set of |
| VNF packaging and validation tools in the VNF Supplier API and Software |
| Development Kit (VNF SDK) and VNF Validation Program (VVP) components. |
| Vendors can integrate these tools in their CI/CD environments to package |
| VNFs and upload them to the validation engine. Once tested, the VNFs can |
| be onboarded through SDC. |
| |
| The Policy Creation component deals with polices; these are rules, |
| conditions, requirements, constraints, attributes, or needs that must be |
| provided, maintained, and/or enforced. At a lower level, Policy involves |
| machine-readable rules enabling actions to be taken based on triggers or |
| requests. Policies often consider specific conditions in effect (both in |
| terms of triggering specific policies when conditions are met, and in |
| selecting specific outcomes of the evaluated policies appropriate to the |
| conditions). Policy allows rapid modification through easily updating |
| rules, thus updating technical behaviors of components in which those |
| policies are used, without requiring rewrites of their software code. |
| Policy permits simpler management / control of complex mechanisms via |
| abstraction. |
| |
| The Closed Loop Automation Management Platform (CLAMP) provides a |
| platform for designing and managing control loops. CLAMP is used to |
| design a closed loop, configure it with specific parameters for a |
| particular network service, then deploy and decommission it. Once |
| deployed, a user can also update the loop with new parameters during |
| runtime, as well as suspend and restart it. |
| |
| 6. Runtime Framework |
| ==================== |
| |
| The runtime execution framework executes the rules and policies |
| distributed by the design and creation environment. |
| |
| This allows for the distribution of policy enforcement and templates |
| among various ONAP modules such as the Service Orchestrator (SO), |
| Controllers, Data Collection, Analytics and Events (DCAE), Active and |
| Available Inventory (A&AI), and a Security Framework. These components |
| use common services that support logging, access control, and data |
| management. A new component, Multi-Site State Coordination (MUSIC), |
| allows the platform to register and manage state across multi-site |
| deployments. The External API provides access for third-party frameworks |
| such as MEF, TM Forum and potentially others, to facilitate interactions |
| between operator BSS and relevant ONAP components. |
| |
| Orchestration |
| ------------- |
| |
| The Service Orchestrator (SO) component executes the specified processes |
| by automating sequences of activities, tasks, rules and policies needed |
| for on-demand creation, modification or removal of network, application |
| or infrastructure services and resources. The SO provides orchestration |
| at a very high level, with an end-to-end view of the infrastructure, |
| network, and applications. |
| |
| The External API Northbound Interface component provides a |
| standards-based interface between the BSS and and various ONAP |
| components, including Service Orchestrator, A&AI and SDC, providing an |
| abstracted view of the platform. This type of abstraction allows service |
| providers to use their existing BSS/OSS environment and minimize |
| lengthy, high-cost integration with underlying infrastructure. The |
| Beijing release is the first of a series of enhancements in support of |
| SDO collaborations, which are expected to support inter-operator |
| exchanges and other use cases defined by associated standards bodies |
| such as MEF, TM Forum and others. |
| |
| Policy-driven Workload Optimization |
| ----------------------------------- |
| |
| In the Beijing Release, ONAP Optimization Framework (OOF) provides a |
| policy-driven and model-driven framework for creating optimization |
| applications for a broad range of use cases. OOF-HAS is a policy-driven |
| workload optimization service that enables optimized placement of |
| services across multiple sites and multiple clouds, based on a wide |
| variety of policy constraints including capacity, location, platform |
| capabilities, and other service specific constraints. |
| |
| In the Beijing Release, ONAP Multi-VIM/Cloud (MC) and several other ONAP |
| components such as Policy, SO, A&AI etc. play an important role in |
| enabling “Policy-driven Performance/Security-aware Adaptive Workload |
| Placement/Scheduling” across cloud sites through OOF-HAS. OOF-HAS uses |
| Hardware Platform Awareness (HPA) and real-time Capacity Checks provided |
| by ONAP MC to determine the optimal VIM/Cloud instances, which can |
| deliver the required performance SLAs, for workload (VNF etc.) placement |
| and scheduling (Homing). The key operator benefit is realizing the true |
| value of virtualization through fine grained optimization of cloud |
| resources while delivering the performance/security SLAs. For the |
| Beijing release, this feature is available for the vCPE use case. |
| |
| Controllers |
| ----------- |
| |
| Controllers are applications which are coupled with cloud and network |
| services and execute the configuration, real-time policies, and control |
| the state of distributed components and services. Rather than using a |
| single monolithic control layer, operators may choose to use multiple |
| distinct Controller types that manage resources in the execution |
| environment corresponding to their assigned controlled domain such as |
| cloud computing resources (network configuration (SDN-C) and application |
| (App-C). Also, the Virtual Function Controller (VF-C) provides an ETSI |
| NFV compliant NFV-O function, that is responsible for lifecycle |
| management of virtual services and the associated physical COTS server |
| infrastructure. VF-C provides a generic VNFM capability but also |
| integrates with external VNFMs and VIMs as part of a NFV MANO stack. |
| |
| In the Beijing release, the new Multisite State Coordination (MUSIC) |
| project records and manages state of the Portal and ONAP Optimization |
| Framework to ensure consistency, redundancy and high availability across |
| geographically distributed ONAP deployments. |
| |
| Inventory |
| --------- |
| |
| Active and Available Inventory (A&AI) provides real-time views of a |
| system’s resources, services, products and their relationships with each |
| other. The views provided by A&AI relate data managed by multiple ONAP |
| instances, Business Support Systems (BSS), Operation Support Systems |
| (OSS), and network applications to form a “top to bottom” view ranging |
| from the products end-users buy, to the resources that form the raw |
| material for creating the products. A&AI not only forms a registry of |
| products, services, and resources, it also maintains up-to-date views of |
| the relationships between these inventory items. |
| |
| To deliver the promised dynamism of SDN/NFV, A&AI is updated in real |
| time by the controllers as they make changes in the network environment. |
| A&AI is metadata-driven, allowing new inventory types to be added |
| dynamically and quickly via SDC catalog definitions, eliminating the |
| need for lengthy development cycles. |
| |
| 7. Closed-Loop Automation |
| ========================= |
| |
| The following sections describe the ONAP frameworks designed to address |
| major operator requirements. The key pattern that these frameworks help |
| automate is: |
| |
| **Design -> Create -> Collect -> Analyze -> Detect -> Publish -> |
| Respond.** |
| |
| We refer to this automation pattern as “closed-loop automation” in that |
| it provides the necessary automation to proactively respond to network |
| and service conditions without human intervention. A high-level |
| schematic of the “closed-loop automation” and the various phases within |
| the service lifecycle using the automation is depicted in Figure 3. |
| |
| Closed-loop control is provided by Data Collection, Analytics and Events |
| (DCAE) and one or more of the other ONAP runtime components. |
| Collectively, they provide FCAPS (Fault Configuration Accounting |
| Performance Security) functionality. DCAE collects performance, usage, |
| and configuration data; provides computation of analytics; aids in |
| troubleshooting; and publishes events, data and analytics (e.g., to |
| policy, orchestration, and the data lake). Another component, “Holmes”, |
| connects to DCAE and provides alarm correlation for ONAP, which depicts |
| the topological relation between different alarms raising either from |
| different layers of VNFs or from different VNF entities that are |
| distributed all over the network. |
| |
| Working with the Policy Framework and CLAMP, these components detect |
| problems in the network and identify the appropriate remediation. In |
| some cases, the action will be automatic, and they will notify Service |
| Orchestrator or one of the controllers to take action. In other cases, |
| as configured by the operator, they will raise an alarm but require |
| human intervention before executing the change. |
| |
| **Figure 5: ONAP Closed Loop Automation** |
| |
| |image4| |
| |
| 8. Common Services |
| ================== |
| |
| ONAP provides common operational services for all ONAP components |
| including activity logging, reporting, common data layer, access |
| control, secret and credential management, resiliency, and software |
| lifecycle management. |
| |
| These services provide access management and security enforcement, data |
| backup, restoration and recovery. They support standardized VNF |
| interfaces and guidelines. |
| |
| Operating in a virtualized environment introduces new security |
| challenges and opportunities. ONAP provides increased security by |
| embedding access controls in each ONAP platform component, augmented by |
| analytics and policy components specifically designed for the detection |
| and mitigation of security violations. |
| |
| 9. ONAP Modeling |
| ================ |
| |
| Adopting the model-driven approach, ONAP provides models to assist the |
| service design, development of various ONAP components and improve the |
| interoperability of ONAP. |
| |
| Models are essential part for the design time and run time framework |
| development. The ONAP modeling project leverages the experience of |
| member companies, standard organizations and other open source projects |
| to produce models which are simple, extensible, and reusable. The goal |
| is to fulfill the requirements of various use cases, guide the |
| development and bring consistency among ONAP components and explore a |
| common model to improve the interoperability of ONAP. |
| |
| In the Bejing Release, ONAP supports the following Models: |
| |
| - A VNF Information Model based on ETSI NFV IFA011 v.2.4.1 with |
| appropriate modifications aligned with ONAP requirements; |
| |
| - A VNF Descriptor Model based on TOSCA implementation based on the IM |
| and follow the same model definitions in ETSI NFV SOL001 v 0.6.0. |
| |
| - VNF Package format based on ETSI NFV SOL004 specification. |
| |
| These models enable ONAP to interoperate with implementations based on |
| standard, and improve the industry collaboration. Service models, |
| multi-VIM models and other models will be explored and defined in the |
| Casablanca and future releases. |
| |
| 10. ONAP Use Cases |
| ================== |
| |
| The ONAP project tests blueprints for real-world use cases to enable |
| rapid adoption of the platform. With the first release of ONAP |
| (“Amsterdam”), we introduced two blueprints: vCPE and VoLTE. Subsequent |
| releases test additional functionality and/or new blueprints. |
| |
| Virtual CPE Use Case |
| -------------------- |
| |
| In this use case, many traditional network functions such as NAT, |
| firewall, and parental controls are implemented as virtual network |
| functions. These VNFs can either be deployed in the data center or at |
| the customer edge (or both). Also, some network traffic will be tunneled |
| (using MPLS VPN, VxLAN, etc.) to the data center, while other traffic |
| can flow directly to the Internet. A vCPE infrastructure allows service |
| providers to offer new value-added services to their customers with less |
| dependency on the underlying hardware. |
| |
| In this use case, the customer has a physical CPE (pCPE) attached to a |
| traditional broadband network such as DSL (Figure 1). On top of this |
| service, a tunnel is established to a data center hosting various VNFs. |
| In addition, depending on the capabilities of the pCPE, some functions |
| can be deployed on the customer site. |
| |
| This use case traditionally requires fairly complicated orchestration |
| and management, managing both the virtual environment and underlay |
| connectivity between the customer and the service provider. ONAP |
| supports such a use case with two key components – SDN-C, which manages |
| connectivity services, and APP-C, which manages virtualization services. |
| In this case, ONAP provides a common service orchestration layer for the |
| end-to-end service. It uses the SDN-C component to establish network |
| connectivity. Similarly, ONAP uses the APP-C component to manage the VNF |
| lifecycle. Deploying ONAP in this fashion simplifies and greatly |
| accelerates the task of trialing and launching new value-added services. |
| |
| In the Beijing Release, the vCPE use case supports Policy-driven |
| Workload Optimization, which is supported by OOF, Multi-VIM/Cloud, |
| Policy, SO, A&AI and other ONAP components. |
| |
| **Figure 6. ONAP vCPE Architecture** |
| |
| |image5| |
| |
| Read the Residential vCPE Use Case with ONAP whitepaper to learn more. |
| |
| Voice over LTE (VoLTE) Use Case |
| ------------------------------- |
| |
| The second blueprint developed for ONAP is Voice over LTE. This |
| blueprint demonstrates how a Mobile Service Provider (SP) could deploy |
| VoLTE services based on SDN/NFV. This blueprint incorporates commercial |
| VNFs to create and manage the underlying vEPC and vIMS services by |
| interworking with vendor-specific components, including VNFMs, EMSs, |
| VIMs and SDN controllers, across Edge Data Centers and a Core Date |
| Center. |
| |
| **Figure 7. ONAP VoLTE Architecture** |
| |
| |image6| |
| |
| ONAP supports the VoLTE use case with several key components: SO, VF-C, |
| SDN-C, and Multi-VIM/ Cloud. In this use case, SO is responsible for |
| VoLTE end-to-end service orchestration. It collaborates with VF-C and |
| SDN-C to deploy the VoLTE service. ONAP uses the SDN-C component to |
| establish network connectivity, then the VF-C component completes the |
| Network Services and VNF lifecycle management (including service |
| initiation, termination and manual scaling which is composed of VNFs |
| based on the unified VNFD model) and FCAPS (fault, configuration, |
| accounting, performance, security) management. VF-C can also integrate |
| with commercial VIMs in the Edge and Core datacenters via abstract |
| interfaces provided by Multi-VIM/Cloud. |
| |
| Using ONAP to manage the complete lifecycle of the VoLTE use case brings |
| increased agility, CAPEX and OPEX reductions, and increased |
| infrastructure efficiency to Communication Service Providers (CSPs). In |
| addition, the usage of commercial software in this blueprint offers CSPs |
| an efficient path to rapid production. |
| |
| Read the VoLTE Use Case with ONAP whitepaper to learn more. |
| |
| .. include:: blueprint-enr.rst |
| |
| Conclusion |
| ========== |
| |
| The ONAP platform provides a comprehensive platform for real-time, |
| policy-driven orchestration and automation of physical and virtual |
| network functions that will enable software, network, IT and cloud |
| providers and developers to rapidly automate new services and support |
| complete lifecycle management. |
| |
| By unifying member resources, ONAP will accelerate the development of a |
| vibrant ecosystem of VNFs around a globally shared architecture and |
| implementation for network automation–with an open standards focus– |
| faster than any one product could on its own. |
| |
| |
| .. |image0| image:: media/ONAP-DTRT.png |
| :width: 6in |
| :height: 2.6in |
| .. |image1| image:: media/ONAP-toplevel.png |
| :width: 6.5in |
| :height: 3.13548in |
| .. |image2| image:: media/ONAP-fncview.png |
| :width: 6.5in |
| :height: 3.409in |
| .. |image3| image:: media/ONAP-oom.png |
| :width: 2.28472in |
| :height: 2.30625in |
| .. |image4| image:: media/ONAP-closedloop.png |
| :width: 6in |
| :height: 2.6in |
| .. |image5| image:: media/ONAP-vcpe.png |
| :width: 6.5in |
| :height: 3.28271in |
| .. |image6| image:: media/ONAP-volte.png |
| :width: 6.5in |
| :height: 3.02431in |