►
From YouTube: CNCF Telecom User Group Meeting - 2020-01-06
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Put
in
your
your
name
and
company
in
there,
it
looks
like
we
do
have
some
new
folks
on
the
call,
so
I
would
love
to
give
folks
a
chance
to
introduce
themselves
and
then
my
agenda
I
think.
Would
you
a
short
update
on
the
CNF
test
bed.
We
are
putting
together
our
plans
for
a
demo
at
Mobile,
World
Congress
in
Barcelona
at
the
end
of
February.
We
hope
that
you
and
many
of
your
colleagues
will
be
able
to
come
by
and
schedule
time
to
meet
with
us.
A
I
also
want
to
mention
that
if
you
make
a
note
now
on
the
Wednesday
night
and
will
be
emailing
this
out
to
the
tug,
but
it's
Wednesday,
the
26th
of
February,
we're
gonna
have
a
reception
at
Mobile,
World,
Congress
and
I'll
mention.
We
did
the
same
thing
a
year
ago
so
and
two
years
ago,
as
well,
but
we'd
love
to
have
you
join
there
and
your
chance
for
this
group
to
meet
each
other.
A
So
my
main
agenda
item
is
to
talk
about
CNF,
conformance
and
I
am
working
away
on
a
proposal
that
I'm
hoping
to
share
with
this
team
relatively
quickly,
but
before
I
get
to
that
I
might
ask
I,
think
Scott
and
Mark
from
AT&T
or
knew
if
you
guys
could
introduce
yourselves
and
then,
if
there's
other
folks
as
well.
Please.
B
Okay,
now
that
I
found
the
double
unmute
I'm
Scott
Steinberg
I'm,
with
AT&T
recently
doing
some
proxying
work
on
Oh
piano
Foos,
be
where
Ben
hue
was
sitting
in
and
I'm,
also
engaging
in
CNT
T
and
now
also
tug
related
to
some.
The
other
community
work
that
18
P
is
doing
so
I'm
going
to
be
lead-in
for
18
T.
The
work
that's
going
on,
hopefully
I'll
bring
it
together
more
so
than
maybe
it
was
done
in
the
past.
So
you'll
be
seeing
my
name
more
often
Thanks
and.
D
A
Great
well
I'm
gonna
welcome
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
both
of
you
in
a
minute,
because
the
other
related
agenda
item
that
I'd
love
to
cover
is
to
go
through
the
your
understanding
of
the
plans
in
Prague
as
as
closely
as
possible.
I,
unfortunately,
am
going
to
be
in
in
China
that
week
and
I
know
that
Taylor
and
his
team
are
gonna,
be
able
to
make
it,
but
before
we
go
into
that,
can
we
have
other
folks
who
are
new
to
call
introduce
themselves?
Please
I
think
bill
from
Lucy.
Is
this
your
first
time
joining.
A
Bill,
could
you
just
remind
Sebastian
for
me,
there
might
be
others
on
the
call
who
could
help
with
this
as
well,
but
in
terms
of
a
very
cool
demo
that
was
done
at
KU,
con
San
Diego.
That
Luther
was
part
of
we're
still
trying
to
get
all
of
the
code
that
was
used
in
that.
So
we
could
take
a
look
at
the
CNF
Symbian
apps
that
were
used
or
we're
looking
for
some
URLs.
Please.
F
G
A
G
A
Okay,
well
I
guess
I
would
ask
them
for
some
of
the
folks
who
are
gonna
be
in
Prague.
Could
you,
when
somebody
volunteer
to
take
two
or
three
minutes
and
walk
through?
My
understanding
is
with
the
re
to
work
there,
that
there
are
some
initial
proposals
to
move
from
BNF
certification
in
the
ovp
process,
to
CNF
certification
but
and
I,
appreciate
that
that's
being
done
by
ovp
by
stereo,
PMF,
ve
and
I,
see
NTT
and
that
they
have
a
github
repo,
but
I
haven't
been
able
to
find
the
work.
A
A
That
the
current
vnf
certification
is
mainly
focused
on
Tusker
or
heat
compliance,
and
so
is
sorry
to
ask
for
the
new
folks
to
jump
in.
But
would
anybody
be
willing
to
step
up
and
explain
and
not
necessarily
speaking
for
CNT
tea
or
the
OBP
program,
but
just
explain
your
understanding
the
process
so.
C
This
is
Marc
Sean,
Stanek
I
can
add
some
color
there.
So
probably
the
reason
you
can't
find
it
is
because
we're
really
still
working
on
the
VNS
side
and
even
before
that
the
baselines
for
the
NFB
I
side-
so
you
know,
re2,
is-
is
being
developed
as
an
NF
bi
platform
at
this
point,
but
the
reference,
certification
or
qualification
hasn't
really
caught
up
to
it.
You
know
the
the
various
phases,
the
reference
we
have,
the
reference
model.
C
We
have
the
reference
architectures,
which
are
all
based
on
the
reference
model
and
then
the
reference
implementation
and
then
the
reference
certification.
So
the
development
is
kind
of
following
that
task
as
well.
So
this
certification
or
qualification
portion
lags
the
development
of
the
the
NFB
eye
portion.
C
No
definitely
not,
and
let's
see
so
and
there's
a
based
on
what
I've
heard
about
the
the
CNF,
but
you
know
there,
there
are
kind
of
some
fundamental
differences
in
the.
In
the
perspective,
our
perspective
in
the
test
that
is
kind
of
a
you
know,
a
a
standardized
test,
regimen
that
that's
executed
against
the
the
VNS
or
the
NFB.
I
under
test
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
my
understanding
about
the
CMS.
D
C
A
Yeah
then
that's
absolutely
the
case
and
maybe
I
will
call
on
Taylor
to
just
do
a
5
minute
overview
of
the
testbed,
since
we
have
several
new
folks.
But
the
key
thing
is
that
that
it's
it's
a
testbed,
not
a
test
harness
or
a
testing
framework,
and
so
I
definitely
want
to
be
clear
on
what
it
is
and
what
small
yeah.
A
The
only
difference
is
that
when
you,
when
you
have
a
CNF
and
it
passed
this
framework,
you
could
then
also
run
it
on
the
test
bed.
If
we
wanted
to
try
and
do
some
some
performance
pieces,
but
before
I
get
to
that
whole
proposal,
I
would
maybe
just
ask
a
little
bit
more
on
the
RA
one
work,
because
the
the
ovp
is
live
today.
Right
I
can
bring
in
a
CNF
I
sorry
a
vm
f
to
the
University
of
New
Hampshire
and
have
them
certified.
For
me.
C
C
H
C
To
you
know:
functional
testing,
where
you're
trying
to
run
let's
say
test
traffic
through
it
and
ensure
that
whatever
the
function
in
the
black
box
is
is
actually
performing
properly.
So
you
know,
most
of
these
tests
have
no
prior
knowledge
of
what
the
vnf
actually
does.
So
it
would
be
difficult
to
validate
its
ability
to
do
that,
whatever
it
might
be.
Okay,.
A
F
G
F
A
I'm
not
sure
we're
gonna
have
CN
CF
representatives.
There
we
kind
of
found
out
about
the
meeting
late
at
the
very
least
I
am
have
aiming
to
have
a
very
rough
document
to
share
with
that
group
that
I'm
talking
about
this
CNF
conformance
concept,
but
that's
why
I
was
just
trying
to
get
as
much
background
on
it
as
possible.
True
and.
G
C
A
If
we
can
align
around
a
program
and
then
you
know
all
the
details
remain
incredibly
difficult,
that
there
actually
is
a
ton
of
work
that
needs
to
be
done
and
figuring
out.
Who
is
going
to
do
that
work
and
how
some
some
relatively
difficult
decisions
will
be
made,
but
I
do
just
want
to
throw
out
that
out
there
that
there's
no
sense
in
which
CF
CF
is
saying.
Oh
we're
off
on
our
own,
and-
and
you
know
we
understand
telecoms
perfectly,
so
we'll
just
go.
A
C
A
A
C
There
is,
there
are
requirements
for
Vienna
like
there
are
fairly
lengthy
requirements
for
V
enough
testing
in
that
context,
and
then,
whatever
state
see,
the
roadmap
for
the
CBC
is
currently
in,
and
it's
all
on
the
web
by
the
way,
so,
whatever
state
any
of
that
sin,
you
have
visibility
into
it.
You
don't
need
yeah.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
guess,
if
I
just
went
one
level
more
detail
here,
could
you
just
give
your
view?
We
had
a
conversation
on
the
Asia
call
a
couple
weeks
ago
that
I
think
everybody
agreed
that
Pete
doesn't
particularly
make
a
lot
of
sense
in
a
CNF
context,
because
it's
so
closely
tied
to
OpenStack.
But
could
you
share
your
perspective
on
Tosca
and
how
how
likely
and
again
I'm
not
looking
for
the
official
ATT
viewpoint
here,
but
maybe
just
sort
of
some
color
on
previous
conversations
within
ovp
or
or
elsewhere
on?
A
Maybe
you
could
paste
a
link
to
that
into
the
chat
or
from
into
the
bits
Tugg
slack,
but
it
was
looking
at
I
think
five
or
six
different
implementations
that
had
been
used
in
the
past
for
CNF,
and
so
a
couple
of
them
were
from
clarify
and
there
was
Tosca
and
the
discussion
of
using
helm,
charts
or
for
others
and
part
of
the
concept
was
just
that.
None
of
them
were
a
great
fit
right
now,
so
I
guess
I.
C
A
A
You
know,
for
example,
there's
a
redhead
engineer
who
did
some
interesting
work
on
about
how
you
could
adapt
patiska
to
kubernetes
and
create
a
custom
compiler
for
it
and
such,
but
it
was
all
speculative
work.
It
wasn't
a
oh
that
let's
go
everyone
adopt
this
and
it
was
really
a
year
ago
and
I
haven't
seen
any
adoption
of
that
approach.
Yeah.
A
H
A
B
C
A
As
a
concrete
goal
he's
the
and
I
hope
that
we
have
agreement
on
this
is
that
there
is
a
strong
desire
from
operators
to
be
able
to
purchase
or
license
CNF
from
multiple
gifts,
or
have
them
all
interoperate
and
work
on
a
single
NFB
iron
and
see
an
FBI.
If
you
want
to
do
it
that
way,
platform,
and
so
the
the
certain
end
goal
of
saying
I,
don't
want
to
be
locked
into
a
single
vendor
solution.
A
I
think
is
one
and
that
I
think
there's
probably
pretty
wide
acceptance
for,
but
the
exact
details
of
how
those
CNF
would
be
demonstrated
performance
and
what
kind
of
interfaces
they
would
be
conforming
to
I
think
we're
made
up
in
the
air.
So
I
have
a
proposal
on
this.
That
piece
is
really
meant
as
a
starting
point.
That
I
think
just
means.
It's
gonna
need
a
huge
amount
of
comments
and
feedback
and
then
we'll,
but
but
hopefully
it's
something
that
could
could
could
get
the
discussion
going.
A
Okay,
well,
that
was
actually
exactly
what
I
was
hoping
to
cover
in
terms
of
my
understanding
of
Prague
and
just
giving
a
little
bit
of
a
preview
of
my
thinking
on
the
the
CNF
performance.
We're
having
a
and
and
I
guess.
I
will
give
one
other
insight
into
it.
Where
that
the
basis
of
the
conformance
work
that
I'm
looking
for
is
to
have
an
open
source
test
suite
and
you
could
really
think
of
it
as
of
it.
But
we
set
a
set
of
different
tests
where
the
model
is
the
certified
kubernetes
program.
A
That
seems
yep
has
been
able
to
orchestrate
the
last
two
and
a
half
years,
and
so
the
key
thing
is
that
that
all
of
those
tests
are
open
source,
that
anyone
can
download
and
run
them
to
certify
that
they're
true
Burnett's
implementation,
east
conformant
and
then
because
of
that
users
can
come
along
later
and
ensure
that
their
that
the
platform
remains
performant
and
so
I
think
that
the
combination
of
the
kind
of
distributed,
crowd-sourced
validation
of
it.
But
people
can't
just
claim
performance
and
upload
incorrect
test
results
and
then
go
operate
in
the
market.
A
But
at
any
point
it
can
be
validated
whether
they're,
actually
performing
or
not,
that
the
tests
themselves
are
open
source
and
then
because
of
their
open
source,
people
can
discuss
and
debate
and
improve
them
over
time
and
then
also
the
thing
that
the
tests
are
following.
The
upstream
projects
are
all
really
powerful
aspects
of
that
certification
for
a
grammar
performance
program
and
then
the
the
certification
on
top
of
it
is
is
relatively
lightweight.
It's
all
done
via
github.
There's,
there's
not
an
external
testing
center
that
you
have
to
send
your
software
to
etc.
A
So
that
is
the
model
that
I'm
basing
it
on
and
that
I'm
going
to
propose
and
and
that
the
CNCs
process
has
been
pretty
spectacular,
successful
where
we
have
over
a
hundred
certified
vendors
representing
the
entire
cloud
and
enterprise
software
industry.
So
but,
interestingly,
we've
only
ever
certified
the
platform's,
the
equivalent
of
n
FBI.
We
haven't
actually
certified
the
applications,
which
is
the
equivalent
of
the
network
computer
and
that's
largely
because
of
a
lack
of
demand
for
it
and
essentially
a
we.
Can
the
generating
folks
have
found
that
containers
tend
to
be
interoperable.
A
F
A
If
there's
anyone
would
like
to
respond
to
any
of
that
or
has
any
comments
or
questions
or
concerns,
and
then
I
might
just
ask
Taylor
to
do
five
or
ten
minutes
on
the
scene
of
testbed
and
some
of
the
work
that
you're
doing
there
with
Michael
and
others
to
make
some
improvements
to
it
and
then
again
for
the
next
call.
We
can
talk
about
what
our
plans
are
for
the
de
Barcelona
demo.
A
D
C
C
You
know
kind
of
I
think
the
closest
idea
I've
had
so
far
is
to
offer
inter
connections
where
you
know
the
people
supplying
the
VNS
can
also
plumb
in
their
own.
You
know
data
stimulus,
generators
and
data
sinks
so
that
they
can
validate
its
its
functionality
in
the
testbed.
But
for
us
to
do
it
don't
question.
H
Yeah
I
mean
that's
that's
effectively
when,
on
some
of
the
interconnects
that
we
do
in
in
SM,
we,
we
have
a
set
of
tests
that
are
defined
around
the
specific
type
of
because
we
came
to
the
realization
that,
like
we
can
provide
things
like
okay
is
this:
is
this
going
to
provide
some
basic
IP
connectivity
like
we
could
easily
provide
to
some
of
that
as
a
common
basis?
But
when
it
comes
down
to
some
more
of
the
specific
things,
it's
like
that,
some
of
the
nuances
of
a
specific
CNF.
H
It's
also
good
for
them
to
be
able
to
inject
their
own
behavior
as
well,
and
not
just
rely
on
on
on
solely
common
commonly
provided
infrastructure.
And
one
of
the
reasons
for
this
is
that
there's
also
educators
that
have
to
be
taken,
but
you'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
and
often
the
the
C
and
F
or
the
NF
provider
is
usually
the
best
person
or
group
rather
to
determine
what
they
displaces.
H
F
H
Yeah
I'll
give
you
a
little
bit
of
perspective
on
my
side
as
well,
so
I
actually
see
upgrading
and
downgrading
as
a
feature
as
opposed
to
a
scalability
or
a
performance
issue
as
well,
because
it's
something
that
it
has
to
be.
It
has
written
code.
You
want
to
automate
it.
You
want
to
test
it
if,
if
it
didn't
conform,
you
upgrade
from
A
to
B
as
a
feature.
You
know
that
you
know
that
works.
You
know
ignoring
the
performance
or
or
scalability
part
and
those
have
to
be
considered
as
well.
H
So
that's
why
I
suppose
the
thing
we
call
that
specific
thing
outwards
from
a
from
a
performance
perspective
and
we
can
help
out
on
some
perspective,
like
we
can
say.
Okay,
we
installed
your
your
our
suite
of
tests
and
your
suite
of
tests
and
we
installed
your
application
and
we
see
it
working.
We
perform
an
upgrade.
We
see
it
working
or
we
see
an
break
or
we
see
this
packet
loss
and
it's
you
know
it's
like
there's
there's
things
that
we
can.
We
can
do
to
to
help
along
along
those
lines.
A
Of
course,
it
is
really
the
operators
who
are
going
to
say
what's
what's
valuable
to
them
or
essential
to
them,
but
the
I
do
think
that
the
standard
test
bed
is
potentially
a
pretty
useful
tool
on
this
front,
because
it's
something
where
the
entire
test
bench
is
open,
source
and
and
publicly
maintained
is
something
that
can
be
discussed
and
and
optimized
and
such
but
then
and
the
it
and
very
likely.
D
D
D
D
What
would
that
look
like,
and
so
looking
at
a
lot
of
projects
well
over
a
year
ago
now
what
was
available
so
one
of
the
was
looking
at
onap,
Thoreau,
say
onap
demo
and
we
actually
started
with
that,
and
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
other
proof
of
concepts
as
well
as
ongoing
work
on
packets.
So
how
would
we
take
something?
That's
focused
on
tell
common
and
get
it
up
and
make
it
where
people
can
contribute
as
a
group
and
and
share
everything.
D
So
we
started
with
that
and
got
some
of
the
disown
app
demo
up
to
a
point.
It
was
based
on
open
sack
and
there
was
multiple
levels
of
virtualization.
It
was
kind
of
a
good
place
to
start
and
and
then
we
ended
up
breaking
things
down
into
the
components
like
the
actual
use
cases
of
ECE
use
case
and
splitting
those
out.
And
where
could
we
go
with
this?
So
we
actually
broke
it
down
into
the
individual
pieces.
D
The
components
some
of
those
are
VPP
based,
Network
functions,
so
all
open
source
there
and
what
we
have
now
is
the
capability
to
build.
What
would
be
maybe
the
NFB
I
platform
as
a
base.
You
can
using
cubes
brain
so
open
source,
kubernetes
production-grade
deployments
and
we
can
deploy
onto
packet,
different
machines
types,
including
some
that
have
quad
Intel
NICs,
that
we
can
put
together
for
different
use
cases
and
you
can
build
the
whole
thing,
including
the
note,
the
networking
aspects,
different
VLANs,
that
you
may
want
for
segmentation
and
build
all
of
that
out.
D
So
that's
kind
of
the
platform
and
make
that
reusable
and
this
some
some.
What
some
of
it
is
I,
don't
want
to
exactly
say,
lowest
common
denominator,
but
the
focus
was
what's
reusable,
so
I
want
to
pair
this
a
little
bit
to
the
RA
to
or
maybe
we'd
say,
the
o
VPC
MTT,
all
Network-
that
reference
implementation.
There's
some
overlap
there,
but,
as
someone
mentioned
early
on,
the
focus
is
a
little
bit
different
and
the
collaboration
and
the
proof-of-concept
aspect
I
think
it's
the
exploration.
D
So
that's
kind
of
idea
here
what
would
a
cloud
native
platform
and
applications?
What
would
these
cloud
native
applications
that
provide
the
functionality?
What
would
that
look
like
so?
The
lot
of
this
is
still
being
understood.
So,
as
we
move
from
physical
to
you
know
different
platforms,
but
virtual
whatever
else
you're
going
to
add
new
functionality
or
add
new
processes
and
you're
going
to
drop
some.
D
Network
service
mesh
Frederick
was
mentioning
some
of
that
few
minutes
ago
is
one
of
them
that
we're
using
that's
a
add-on
or
extension
to
kubernetes
to
expand
the
functionality
so
being
able
to
show
stuff
like
that,
and
that's
really
been.
The
focus
in
the
kind
of
the
last
six
months
is
making
things
a
little
bit
more
pluggable
for
people
to
join
and
and
have
part
of
that.
So
we've
been
talking
about
heat
templates
and
Tosca
and
stuff
on
the
conformant.
D
So
on
the
queue
brunetti
side
specifically
because
we
did,
we
do
have
OpenStack
software
in
the
CNF
testbed
that
you
can
use
and
run
and
see
us
some
of
the
being
us
and
work
as
well.
On
the
kubernetes
side,
it's
using
either
helm,
charts
or
kubernetes
yamo,
manifest
files
that
you
can
describe
use
cases
or
what
a
deployment
looks
like
and
have
those
reusable
between
this
different
test
and
making
that
more
usable
for
someone
to
come
in
and
add,
maybe
a
very
simple
test.
D
That's
test
the
Intel
device
plug
in
for
a
kubernetes
and
how
would
that
work
or
a
more
expensive
one
that
may
use
that
and
and
do
like
SRO
V
and
as
a
full
use
case
and
those
different
parts.
So
it's.
If
someone
is
new
to
these
things,
then
it
gives
a
way
to
step
in
at
those
different
levels
and
then,
if
you
want
to
contribute
so
at
the
start
of
the
call
dan
mentioned,
I
won't
really
go
into
this
much.
D
How
do
we
do
different
yeast
cases
right
now,
we're
not
looking
at
the
rand
side,
we're
looking
at
a
packet
core
pieces
and
there's
a
few
different
implementations
that
we're
looking
at
starting
with
some
specific
components
within
the
packet
core
and
showing
how
workloads
would
go
across
those
and
how
we
can
manage
connections
in
a
dynamic
way,
and
that's
the
main
focus
on
this
and
then
expanding
out
to
say
again
a
proof
of
concept.
So
we
can
discuss
this.
How
would
you
have
a
cloud
native
packet
core?
D
D
Trying
to
not
repeat
things
that
we've
already
covered,
we
plan
on
doing
I,
guess
a
few
other
things:
roadmap
wise.
We
have
some
stuff
with
say,
Malta
sand,
other
that
other
examples
for
accessing
different
devices.
Srv
stuff.
We
have
some
of
those
in
there
already
there's
IPSec
examples
and
the
testbed
a
lot
of
other
yeast
cases
that
I
think
would
be
common.
D
C
D
I
would
say:
there's
if
you're
like
for
AT&T
or
any
operator,
if
you
already
have
platforms
that
you're
using
and
if
you're
looking
any
type
of
new
technology
or
what
it,
what
is
potentially
I,
don't
say
the
technology,
but
the
changing
these
some
new
principles
on
how
it's
architected
or
you're
gonna
want
to
know
what
are
the
benefits
and
then
what
are
the
concerns?
So,
if
there's
anything
specific
you're
looking
at
like
we
were
right
now,
the
focus
was
a
on
the
packet
core
and
a
specific
part.
How
would
this
work
and
still
be
dynamic?
D
How
can
you
show
that
how
being
dynamic
and
and
have
the
functionality
for
these
devices
to
find
each
other,
but
if
there's
anything
specific
that
you're
looking
at
like
concerns?
How
would
we
do
this?
In
the
past,
we
were
looking
at
benchmarking
for
network
performance
and
stuff,
and
how
does
that
look
and
we've
been
showing
how
you
would
be
able
to
add
different
network
paths
and
that's
where
network
service
mesh
is
one
of
the
examples.
D
Could
be
application,
it
could
be
I
mean
some
of
the
they
split
up
on
the
CNF
test
bed
on
like
how
the
new
structure
is
for
the
test,
we
have
split
off
what
we
did
think
of
as
the
platform
and
that
container
with
stuff
like
we
expect
the
platform
to
have
these
SRV
components
and
these
other
pieces,
like
maybe
network
service,
mesh
or
whatever,
and
how
that
would
fit
to
provide
functionality
from
a
platform
side
so
definitely
interested
in
the
platform
as
well.
Either
way
really,
it
depends
on
the
concerns
and
questions.
C
B
D
Thanks
thanks
guys
thanks,
so
when
the
conformance
testing
said
I,
think
and
the
thing
would
be
making
sure
that
the
test
fit
and
run
those
different
conformance
tests.
I
think
what
Dan
was
saying
is
having
owing
the
kubernetes
model,
where
the
pasture
that
can
open
suite
and
from
the
platform
side,
that's
I'm,
essentially
easier,
because
you
can
say
here
the
different.
D
I
A
tailor
hey.
This
is
scare
one
question
in
the
context
of
a
more
generic
adoption
of
the
testbed
and,
in
particular,
in
the
context
of
a
compliance
just
with
what
are
your
plans
regarding
decoupling
it
further
from
the
packet
focused
deployment
scripting
you
currently
have
in
place,
so
I
personally
would
love
to
deploy
the
same
things.
Also
like
an
internal
lab,
because
that's
just
easier
for
me
to
get.
I
D
Totally
open
to
supporting
other
platforms,
either
I
guess
the
physical
under
underlying
platform
that
it
runs
on
and
it's
if
you
or
other
folks
would
like
to
contribute
on
that.
That's
really
the
main
thing
that
components
that
build
out
the
environment,
including
deploying
any
NS
and
connecting
and
everything
else
all
of
those
are
split
up.
D
There
is
pretty
pretty
strongly
split,
two
or
composable,
but
making
making
it
where
you
can
use
different
pieces.
So
if
say,
you
have
a
you're
already
running
kubernetes,
then
you
should
be
able
to
deploy
the
different
tests
or
it's
going
to
come
in
two
places.
Stuff
like
if
you're
doing,
hardware,
acceleration
or
something
then
there
are,
can
be
specific
parts
on
that.
But
you're
really
talking
about
what
tests
are
you're
running
some
of
the
tests
or
more
of
a
functionality.
D
That's
not
say
a
performance
specific
functionality,
then
those
should
just
run
and
you
should
be
able
to
deploy
them
any
kubernetes.
If
it's
something
where
you're
running
and
doing
SRV
and
the
SRV
plugin
that
you're
testing
doesn't
support,
they
be
the
network
hard.
Then
that
may
not
work
Zef
like
VLANs
and
everything.
Those
are
things
that
are
fairly
dynamic
as
far
as
how
they're
configured
for
what
you're
running,
but
it's
it
would
be
tying
it
in
to
the
underlying
platform.
D
So
if
you
have
a
way
to
maybe
pass
stuff
like
that
in
then
it
should
be
able
to
run,
but
if
this
is
definitely
a
place
that
we
want
to
go
and
it's
it's
something
where
I
know
there's
gaps
or
there's
parts
there
and
we
need
kind
of
a
driver.
For
that
and,
potentially
you
know,
collaboration
access,
we've
talked
about
supporting
stuff
like
AWS,
is
bare
metal
and
stuff,
but
for
sure
labs
within
a
you
know,
the
fender
and
operator
side.
D
D
So
potentially
even
that
sort
thing
inside
of
the
lab,
we
could
provide
some
type
of
integration
and
then
you
could
target
say
a
specific
switch
or
router
whatever
it
is
to
do
configuration
at
the
platform
level,
which
I
think
would
be
awesome
so
totally
up
into
that.
And
if
you
want
to
follow
up
I'd
love
to
hear
from
you.
Okay,.
D
Think
we're
we're
here
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
there's
a
telecom
music
group,
slack
channel
and
CNCs
slack
and
a
tag
there's
also
a
SAN
testbed
channel,
there's
some
dev
channels
and
please
join
the
CNCs
slack
and
there's
conversations
there
that
going
every
day
on
this
and
the
next
telecom
user
group
meeting
it's
two
weeks,
it'll
be
at
the
7
p.m.
China,
Standard,
Time
and
I.
Think
that's
about
it.
J
Everybody,
my
name
is
Brooke.
First
Mayer
from
net
number
I
had
to
jump
in
and
jump
out
a
couple
times.
I
got
invited
to
this
meeting
via
a
colleague
here
at
net
number,
Patrick
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
who
I
can
send
an
email
to
so
I
can
be
on
the
recurring
meeting
and
jump
in
slack
and
other
collateral.