ONAP Architectures for Network Function Virtualization

  • Abel Fernández-Nandín
  • Felipe Gil-Castiñeira
  • Francisco J. González-Castaño
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 263)


The Network Function Virtualization paradigm is changing the telecommunications industry. Network applications in general purpose telco infrastructures will be instantiated on demand or deployed in the most appropriate location for each use case. Nevertheless, these virtualized scenarios are complex and require tools to manage the different components flexibly and reliably. ONAP is one of the projects that are implementing such tools. It provides a rich set of elements that can be executed in virtual machines or containers, following different architectures. In this paper we present the different possibilities for that and analyze their advantages and disadvantages.


Network Function Virtualization Containers ONAP 


  1. 1.
    Armbrust, M., et al.: Above the clouds: a Berkeley view of cloud computing. Technical report UCB/EECS-2009-28, vol. 4, pp. 506–522. EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vaughan-Nichols, S.J.: New approach to virtualization is a lightweight. Computer 39(11), 12–14 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gao, X., Gu, Z., Kayaalp, M., Pendarakis, D., Wang, H.: ContainerLeaks: emerging security threats of information leakages in container clouds. In: 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pp. 237–248. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manco, F., et al.: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container. In: Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 218–233. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewer, E.A.: Kubernetes and the path to cloud native. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, pp. 167–167. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cacciatore, K., et al.: Exploring Opportunities: Containers and OpenStack. OpenStack White Paper, 19 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaquero, L.M., Rodero-Merino, L., Buyya, R.: Dynamically scaling applications in the cloud. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41(1), 45–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lei, X., Zhe, X., Shaowu, M., Xiongyan, T.: Cloud computing and services platform construction of telecom operator. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Broadband Network & Multimedia Technology, IC-BNMT 2009, pp. 864–867. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Afolabi, I., Taleb, T., Samdanis, K., Ksentini, A., Flinck, H.: Network slicing & softwarization: a survey on principles, enabling technologies & solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiosi, M., et al.: Network functions virtualisation: an introduction, benefits, enablers, challenges and call for action. In: SDN and OpenFlow World Congress, pp. 22–24 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreutz, D., Ramos, F.M., Verissimo, P.E., Rothenberg, C.E., Azodolmolky, S., Uhlig, S.: Software-defined networking: a comprehensive survey. Proc. IEEE 103(1), 14–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISG, N.: Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV): Management and Orchestration. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parker-Johnson, P., Doiron, T.: Succeeding on an open field: the impact of open source technologies on the communication service provider ecosystem. ACG Research Report (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duan, Q., Ansari, N., Toy, M.: Software-defined network virtualization: an architectural framework for integrating SDN and NFV for service provisioning in future networks. IEEE Netw. 30(5), 10–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kourtis, M.A., et al.: T-NOVA: an open-source MANO stack for NFV infrastructures. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 14(3), 586–602 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cziva, R., Jouet, S., White, K.J., Pezaros, D.P.: Container-based network function virtualization for software-defined networks. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication (ISCC), pp. 415–420. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cziva, R., Pezaros, D.P.: Container network functions: bringing NFV to the network edge. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55(6), 24–31 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavanagh, A.: OpenStack as the API framework for NFV: the benefits, and the extensions needed. Ericsson Rev. 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slim, F., Guillemin, F., Gravey, A., Hadjadj-Aoul, Y.: Towards a dynamic adaptive placement of virtual network functions under ONAP. In: Third International NFV-SDN 2017-O4SDI-Workshop on Orchestration for Software-Defined Infrastructures (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rotter, C., Farkas, L., Nyíri, G., Csatári, G., Jánosi, L., Springer, R.: Using Linux containers in telecom applications. In: 19th International ICIN Conference - Innovations in Clouds, Internet and Networks, pp. 234–241 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Combe, T., Martin, A., Di Pietro, R.: To Docker or not to Docker: a security perspective. IEEE Cloud Comput. 3(5), 54–62 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abel Fernández-Nandín
    • 1
  • Felipe Gil-Castiñeira
    • 1
  • Francisco J. González-Castaño
    • 1
  1. 1.atlanTTic Research Center for Telecommunication TechnologiesUniversidade de VigoVigoSpain

Personalised recommendations