Jan's toolbox includes standards and practices such as IT for IT, ITILS, SAFE, Design Thinking, Agile, DevOps, and Continuous Delivery. And Jan is, thank you Jan, you are an active member of the OpenGrips IT for IT forum. In this session, Jan will present a case study for how Skyhoo's partner set out to modernize its operating model to better support digital product delivery. The initial phase of this operating model modernization initiative used the IT for IT reference architecture as a blueprint for a holistic capability model for the IT organization. So we've heard a few standards from the OpenGrips mentioned so far today and Jan's going to talk to more about another one, the IT for IT reference architecture. A warm virtual welcome from the OpenGrips, Jan Stobbe. Thank you, Steve. My name is Jan Stobbe. I'm working for Suga News Partner. I guess that's the most difficult thing of this presentation to pronounce the name of the company. Yes, it is. We are, actually, I've been working for a project in the last couple of months, almost over a year now. That is an operating model modernization project and that's basically the topic of my talk today. I will start off with a short introduction of Suga's partner and who we are and what we do. Then I will describe our modernization voyage and before I really dive deep into our operating model transformation, I will not be able to be talking about all of it but I want to look at two aspects that I think are especially interesting before we then go over to the Q&A. Suga's partner is a part of the Southeastern Norway Regional Health Authority or Norwegian heist service, Reginald Heist for that. We cover about 3 million citizens that it's over half of Norway. We are 11 local health trusts. I'll look at them as a federation but they're actually owned by Heist heist and a few private partners. Physically that's 25 hospitals, thousands of ambulances, pharmacies, labs, logistics and a lot of out-care centers. There are 80,000 employees in Heist service that means we have 80,000 users. In 2019 Heist service spent about 8 billion euros mostly for Heist. The last but not least, Heist service has the largest IT environment. There's where Suga's partner comes into play. We're one of those sort of health trusts and we are the shared service provider. Founded in 2003 basically by putting together all the IT organizations of those hospitals. We have grown to 1,550 employees and number of that is still growing but has become quite stable. Short about Suga's partner's motivation, modernization voyage. In 2015 we started for the first time to make a large modernization of the infrastructure estate that at the time had grown old and was very fragmented. The discussion phase ended up that we started basically sale and lease back outsourcer where a partner would take over responsibility for the infrastructure, modernize it and deliver it back to us on a lease basis. Weeks before we should go live the project was stopped due to security concerns and one year later was the contract with the outsourcing provider was cancelled. Then the same year we started a new program for the standardization and modernization of the IT infrastructure. The two programs have in common that they are mainly technology focused. But especially the newer one has actually a bigger focus on the operating model and actually acknowledges that when you modernize infrastructure you also have to look at your operating model. I mentioned that first program really because it is important to understand what such a project or program going wrong does to your employees. We are meeting a lot of resistance in that new project just because you guys failed the first time and everything went wrong the first time. So although everybody agrees that we need to do something we need to transform everybody still has that feels that pain from that first attempt on sale and that impacts the new work. Well why transform the operating model and why transform it now? We are seeing that we have a growing backlog of deliverables to our customers. We have an end of life issues in our technology state, everything grows old. Just as a reminder that since we attempt we wanted to source out the infrastructure not much has been done there in the last years. We have this modernization initiative ongoing in the region is building several new hospitals almost in one hospital per year. And we have that ever ongoing digital transformation throughout the healthcare region that just leads to an ever increasing demand for IT capacity and velocity. So our approach is that we have to automate what we can automate in order to make room and use our people to focus on what cannot be automated. And so we think that we need to adopt modern practices and behaviors. We have to go over from a waterfall throwing things over the fence approach to project delivery to establishing teams that maintains and has a much bigger ownership to the technology. We need to collaborate more and more efficiently. I think often we use the term co-creation instead of delivering. And like I said we need to seek automation to make capacity free for other stuff and also to reduce errors. So what are the ingredients for an operating model? The last six, seven years that I was with SuperSpark, now we've worked with service orientation and we basically started wrapping the applications that we maintain or deliver to the hospitals into service wrapping. So the other things that we thought should go into an operating model are design thinking and agile DevOps and Tweeting is delivery as the four cornerstones that we build everything on. And as I pointed out earlier, we think that a hierarchical organization that is very focused on the managers and the leaders is not efficient for what we need to do. We want to have more end-to-end accountable teams where throwing over the fence doesn't happen anymore but really where you have a team within accountability for what they deliver. At a previous open group event a couple years ago I picked up this book here and it's called The Operating Model Canvas. And what's nice about it is this picture, it's so self-expansory. So it divides up your operating model, tells you what are the domains that you have to look at when working with the operating model. And so defining an operating model, it's two things. It's how we deliver value to our customers and how we run ourselves. And that helps us to structure our approach in order to do what we do in this project. So what to do first? We figure this is so big and large projects you tend to fail because we tend to fix everything. So we need a map and a plan and scope is really the biggest issue that we've experienced all over the years since the bigger the project gets, the more likely it is to fail. So fix everything project part too large and they're difficult to manage and they will fail eventually. Small isolated initiatives have little or no business impact. So you have these little heroes that I have much respect for but they go and fix one process. And then you say, what's the business impact? Because what you do is right but it depends on other things happening in order to have an effect on the business. And that's where we struggle also with idle processes that we have established everywhere basically in operations at least. So if you want to improve one, you end up having so many dependencies that your project gets larger and you have to stop or scale down. Or you have to basically make the project larger and larger with all the difficulty that brings along. And then whenever we worked with process improvement we figured out we saw that there was the effect was so little and then we couldn't show for what we did. Internally everybody was like, oh cool, now we would have a change process improvement or you have request models. But it didn't really feel at the business end. And obviously, especially from the vendor market, I guess it says, okay, we need to build by a new tool set. We need to transition to another tools and everything will be perfect. And that's obviously not true either. So what are the main building blocks? And they're now going into the canvas and the P in the middle which stands for processes. We decided that we need to describe the enterprise at rest and the enterprise in motion. For rest, we use the capability object from the Archimade specification or standard. And capabilities provide high level view of the abilities of an organization. So what do we do? And then for us focusing on the IT part of the organization, okay, what are the IT capabilities? And on the other hand, enterprise in motion, how do we actually generate the value? And how? And we need to describe that on a high level and not to begin to long details and actually have to formulate something to a proposal that the business would buy into. And so we use the values to object in Archimade. So the first thing that we said we needed was a capability model. And here we were really compensating for our governance, for the lack of governance, I think. So I was, when I started in that project, I went to our governance people and said, okay, where's our capability model? We didn't have one, right? So we said, okay, let's use IT for IT, which is really reference architecture for tooling. But it has all the ingredients that you need for a capability model on the business level as well. And so at the time, version 2.1 was the current version, which still is, I think. You had those four value streams, stretch portfolio requirements to deploy requests to fulfill and detect to correct. And we made those capabilities. And that basically worked quite well together also with the discussions we are having in the IT for IT forum every Wednesday. And so we built this picture basically based on something I found in the forum. And we called it Super Spartan Value Network. And then we made all the value streams capabilities. And we tried to find stuff that are in those capabilities until we could basically have a hierarchy also in the capabilities. I have to mention that we got a lot of help from the market here. So that's not necessarily know how that we had in-house. Based on that capability model, we defined value streams. And those are, again, very similar to what you were going to experience in the next version of IT for IT, I think. So we will have this, the value stream explorer that basically is about making good plans. You have a value stream for integrating with this basically building good products. You have release, we are not calling it release, not publish. That basically is all about building that IKEA catalog that you can publish to your users and say, okay, this is what you can order. You have requests basically in where that describes what happens when someone orders. And deploy, obviously, what happens in systems and operators all about secure operation of things. Also, if you remember that big arrow from version 2.1, what's under the arrow has become those supporting capabilities. We really need those. They're not only supporting their part of the operating model. So if we move this around a little bit and move the strategy portfolio to the top, then you get this picture. And we tried this, we tested this, so I can say we're agile and we got quite good feedback. Also, this is one way of using those pictures we highlighted those that we focus on. So it's not that we don't have the other ones or we're just in our project we're actually working on with three of them. So, again, back to scope and we have adopted a model that we said, okay, we need to develop the values to maturity in stages or in plateaus if you want. And you can only integrate what you know, you can only automate or integrate what's integrated. So we really say on that, this is a communication effort that we're doing towards leadership and also inside the organization. We start simple. We need to understand and really write down how we do things. When we really have agreed here and we are 1500 people, so that agreement and Norway takes a long time. And so once we have those defined, we actually built and screwing together the systems and building the integrations between systems. Later on then, automated them. I think there are no shortcuts here. So you can hop over things. You can start with automation without being truthful to your stakeholders and say, okay, there's an automation unless we have this figured out. So what to do, we built, we call this a sunshine diagram, although the sun is green on this one. We have a stream basically, each value stream gets one of those sections in that diagram. We put all the efforts and all the initiatives that we plan, we put on this picture. And this worked out to be quite useful in communicating what we're attempting to do. And the other thing is we can actually say, okay, we're only going to focus on this box. And when we're finished with that box, we're going to take the next one and you can say stop. So we don't need funding for this whole picture. We need for this little box right here. And that reduces risk and actually increases the focus on the work at hand. Now I'm going over, we'll use the last few minutes to looking at organization or the organization dimension of the canvas. We have a current pattern that business teams and project talk directly to infrastructure teams. They do not speak the same language. There's a lot of misunderstanding. There's a lot of back and forth. There's a lot of misprioritization between operations and development of the state. And the worst thing is I think that you get a lot of undesired variation. So whenever we build something, a system, then basically infrastructure beneath gets set up especially for dedicated for that system. And so everything is different. There's no standard components. There's that language gap between the people. There's a lot of technology depth. And it's difficult to set up integrations between the system afterwards. Last but not least, you're getting really dependent upon your vendors for all those clinical systems. So what we are thinking is that we need to build up a framework for co-creation with business teams and the top infrastructure teams at the bottom as before, but we inject those platform teams in the middle that understand the business team language, but that can say, okay, here's your menu. Here's the stuff that you can consume to build your business services on. And that's standardization. And we have this ESM orchestration team and for service management, an orchestration team on the left that is creating, that is maintaining the framework. We are quite specific about in our communication internally that this team is not about controlling the deliveries and what happens between those teams, but basically to build the outbounds and the framework of communication between those teams. So that will narrow the language gap. We will have a decoupling that makes it easier to lifecycle the systems on the specific level also. In practice, this could look like you have a system, a portfolio of systems on the top of services or digital products or whatever you want to call this, that we can pick and choose on what platforms they run and the platforms themselves can pick and choose what infrastructure they are on. Picking and choosing is maybe not the right term, but there's a little more flexibility here. And also we are building up a structure that actually allows us to manage the variety of technologies on both the infrastructure and the platform. Those teams, we're looking at those two pizza team rules that shouldn't be too large and I also recommend Team Topologies, the book, which is very interesting and gives some hints about how to build those teams. I would like to close with some lessons that we have identified, but yet not solved. We find that value streams help to create folks on one area at a time, so that's really much more than processes. They're useful for understanding tooling, the flow of information and tooling integration gaps and to develop tooling strategies, but not only that. The IT reference, IT for IT reference architecture, we find is finally accepted as a standard in-house and we actually pitch it as a standard that we just have to basically comply to when we do things. We have a challenge that the things we do tend to be very academic. It's hard to get an approach for an EA approach that is not fighting fires. We need to compensate for a lot of stuff that's missing in governance. Like I said, the capability model is really not something that I personally think such a project should produce. I think being bold is also very difficult, especially when using terms as DevOps and those other pillars that I mentioned at the beginning create a lot of defensive reactions saying that we're not doing this kind of stuff. This is like 10 years in the future. What we've learned so far is a need to mention that we are now at the end of the concept phase so we're trying to get into planning and implementation phase afterwards is that you need to start, we need to gain momentum.  He will carry this project into the next phase and then trust will build up. We need that iterative approach is very important but you still have to have a constant work on the plan that evolves over time. Especially in a project that is part of an infrastructure modernization program we need to be very specific about that. Operating model transformation is not technology transformation. It is organizational or mental organization. Those soft things are not so easy described as building a data center or replacing network switches. So it's more difficult to get buy-in for those. We have established a habit of insisting on the accountability of both other project and the line organization for what we do. When we're building catalogs, for example, and we're building processes then we're not starting before we don't have this crown prince in the organization that will own this afterwards. And last but not least, you need to make sure everybody understands what you're trying to do. In some phases, in some aspects of this project, honestly we couldn't explain it and that was due to the reason that we didn't understand it ourselves. But once you can explain it to everyone then I think it gets more obvious what you want to do and I think then you will succeed. Yes, I think this was it. Thank you for your attention and if there's time left we could do some questions. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Jan, for your presentation. We are extending people's participation here a little but a question came in that actually came in in a different context earlier around the Agile architecture sessions and that was with such a transformation like this that it's not just a technology thing it's affecting people, processes, culture, it's a big deal. How do you go about that whilst continuing to do business as usual to do the day job to deliver the services to clients as usual? I think there's two questions here. I think Ben gave one part of the answer by actually breaking it down and running your talk of ADM cycles incomplete, you could say. And the other one is, like I said, finding that crown prince in the organization solving actually a current pain point for someone and basically adding like pitting to it all the other small stuff that you really want to do. So for us standardization is that big issue and so the question is how can we standardize? How can we standardize? How can we reduce the variation? And then we said okay, do it this way. And I think that at least that's our approach and we're going quite well so far. Yeah, now absolutely and it's great to hear a story of how useful standards can be as well because obviously this is the open group and that's what we do. So thank you for sharing the experience. I'll have another goes. Suki, who's partner, is that better? That's nice, very good. Okay, well I can't. And I'm interested, maybe some other time offline but I'm interested, you made a comment about getting agreement in Norway takes longer. So maybe that's something about the Norwegian psyche that I never realized before but I've made a mental note about that one. Okay, well thank you very much, Jan. And thank you everyone for attending today. That brings us to the end of our sessions.


Everyone is ordering online right now and if you're not, then most likely you're out of business. But if you are, how are you utilizing this platform? Today, we're gonna be covering the seven tips to increase your online orders so that way you can outbeat all your competitors. Make sure you guys keep watching until the end so that way you guys can have more profits in your pockets. Hey, it's Wilson here, your friend in helping you build a successful, thriving, profitable restaurant. Just wanna give a major shout out to these two individuals here who are inspiring us and motivating us to create more of these content for you. If you want a shout out, make sure you guys leave a comment in the section below so that way we know this is the type of content you like. Now without further ado, let's dive right in. Number one tip in increasing your online orders is to have signages. This is the lowest hanging fruit that a lot of businesses are not utilizing. It is because with this new normal, everyone are trying to adapt to it. They don't know if your restaurant is open. They don't know whether you are accepting online deliveries on online orders or not, which is the reason why you need to tell them. You need to yell it out that you are now in business, you are now accepting delivery as an option. That's the reason why you need to have signages, signages, signages. Plaster them all over your windows. Plaster them on your sandwich board. Plaster them in your restaurant.  My favorite restaurant did that and that's the reason why I always go back to it for the last week, not just because it's my favorite, but because that's the only place I know that is open. Second step in increasing your online orders is to tell your customers to share it. It is so important for you to actually tell them that hey, you know what, can you please support local business, tell your friends and family that we're open and for them to spread their word on their social media. You tell them to do something, they're much more likely to act on that, which is the reason why I always tell you guys to, hey, you know what, if you like this video, make sure you smash the like button and a lot of you are supporting us as they are in our journey and therefore you would smash the like button. So you need to tell your customers to tell their friends that you're open for business, that you're open for online delivery and thus you're gonna be able to see an uplift in your online orders. Third step is to update and share within your social media. Share on your Instagram, share in your stories, share in your Facebook, share it within all the social media network out there and yell at the top of your lungs that you guys are open, that you guys are open for online delivery. This is crucial time for us to actually just let everyone know because a lot of us are still just cooking at home because we still think that where everyone is under quarantine as much as the government is opening up shop for everyone and allowing people to be in business, a lot of people just don't know which restaurants are open, which are not. That's the reason why you need to tell all your following that you are open for business and that you are open for online delivery and in turn a lot more people will come and buy from you. Fourth step in increasing your online orders is to update your Google My Business. Google is favoring all the businesses that have filled in all their attributes. For example, if you have free parking lot or not, if you have your updated hours or not, if you are dog friendly or not, so filling in as much attributes as you can within the system allows Google to favor you more. So for me, as a regular consumer, I would just go on Google and search for, for example, yesterday night, I was typing in top Shanghai food and only one place popped up because they updated their Google My Business and on top of that, I was able to see beautiful high definition pictures which enticed me to order from them already because I'm like, wow, this looks amazing. And on top of that, they replied to their emails and also their feedback and reviews and that makes me feel confident in purchasing from this location. And that's the reason why it is crucial even through this pandemic that you update your Google My Business accounts. If you guys find any value whatsoever from this video, make sure you smash the like button so that that way we know this is the type of content that you enjoy and we'll make more of it for you. Now let's get back to regular programming. Next step in increasing your online orders is to make your website super apparent and what I mean by that is, have delivery as an option above the fold of your website. So then that way people don't need to scroll down, people don't need to move their browsers and majority of the people that are searching, they're on their phone. So make sure that delivery as an option is always, always right in the corner of the top of your page. So then that way people know exactly that they can order from you, they don't need to search, they don't need to scroll and that in turn allows you to have much more sales just by having your online delivery option at the top of your page. Sixth step to increase your online delivery orders is to utilize your emails. A lot of restaurantiers collect emails but they don't really utilize them. They don't send their customers emails on a regular basis. So now is the time for you to do that. For you to actually establish a rapport with your customers, give them value, tell them something interesting, connect with them and then when the timing is right, send them an offer, send them a Father's Day meal, send them a happy hour meal for them to purchase from you and that in turn allows you to have much more uplift in your online orders and something that is also an amazing tool of why email marketing is so, so good is because you can track, you can track how much people are actually buying from you, how many people actually clicked on the link and actually purchased from you and that's the beauty of email marketing. So if you're not on it, make sure you're on it, make sure you give value, value, value before you ask for something in return. Last but not least, something that is my personal favorite is to add a personalized message to all your meals. Something that I think is crucial to establish that rapport with your customers now and that's the reason why I consult with all my clients, I tell them you should always, always write a personalized message out there for your customers because now's the time that you need to lean on your customers to spread the word for you and as a customer, we're not used to and accustomed to getting these private messages. So if someone actually wrote me a message when I ordered through DoorDash, thank you Wilson for your support and much love and that's something that I would take to heart because I'm like, wow, this restaurant actually cares. This restaurant actually took one step above and beyond to actually write me a message and for me in turn, I would either put, take a photo of it, put it on Instagram or whatnot and share it with the world about how amazing this restaurant is. So therefore, if you want an uplift on your online orders, make sure you guys start utilizing this best practice to write a personalized message for your customers. So there you go, the seven tips to increase your online delivery orders. I really, really hope you enjoyed this video. I know it's a little bit short, which is the reason why I invite you to join my free masterclass in the link below and this masterclass is an hour long, full of action packed strategies in building a restaurant from scratch with all the best practices. I know everyone out there that is interested in building a restaurant already in the restaurant business can take tremendous amount of value from this video. Make sure you guys sign up in the link below. Otherwise, I'll see you guys in the next video.


Since the killing of George Floyd, this may and the eruption of a global Black Lives Matter movement, English footballers have been taking a knee at the start of matches. However, due to COVID restrictions, they have been making the symbolic gesture to empty stadiums. That was until this weekend, and Millwall fans caused outrage when they responded to their team taking a knee by booing. Now, right wingers have defended the booing, saying this is not against anti-racism, it's against the specific demands of the organization Black Lives Matter, the specific extreme demands of the organization Black Lives Matter. Among them was Richard Tice, who's chair of the Brexit Party, who ash-faced down today on Politics Live. They are anti-police, they're anti-capitalism, they're anti-the family, they are a dangerous, Marxist organization. I can't help but laugh at Richard's earlier comments about BLM being a scary anti-capitalist, anti-family organization. As was said, it's widely recognized as a movement of hundreds of thousands of people who shared a shared goal about combating institutional racism, particularly in law enforcement. Because what it reminds me of is the fact that Martin Luther King, when he was alive, never enjoyed the support of the majority of white Americans. He simply didn't. Two-thirds of white Americans had a negative view of him. Why? Because he was characterized as a Marxist, as in league with the communists. And this wasn't some fringe idea, this is what the FBI was saying. So I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Marxist, it would be kind of hypocritical if I did. However, this is how anti-racist movements throughout history have been delegitimized. It's by this kind of red scare tactics, and it's absurd. And I think, and I'm really glad about this, more and more people can see through the absolute absurd guff that's coming from people like Richard Tice. Richard Tice's face when Ash was giving him that lesson in history was a joy to watch. Ash, well done. You made your point very well there. Yeah, he accused me of hurling obscenities after I said absurd guff. And I thought, my God, Mary Whitehouse in the building sounds easily shocked. It is a very good point though, right? This idea that, because it's not just him, we're going to in a moment sort of see George Eustace talking about this. Lots of right-wingers who are saying, no, this has nothing to do with anti-racism per se. This has to do with the explicit aims of the Black Lives Matter organization, who are anti-police, who are communist, who are Marxist. And so therefore it's absolutely right to boo Black players taking the knee. Who aren't Marxist, by the way, I haven't really seen anyone claiming that the players taking a knee are themselves, anti-police, Marxist, etc., etc. But it still does have quite a lot of traction, potentially more in the general public than necessarily in mainstream politics as well. This might be something which is a resentment, which is more brewing than one which is sort of expressed in polite opinion. I don't know what you think about that. Well, I think it's something which is becoming mainstreamed. So once upon a time, this kind of scaremongering around cultural Marxism, this idea that leftists have infested liberal institutions like the BBC or universities or the civil service, under pursuing an agenda which is hostile to white supremacy, really. Hostile to white nationalism is trying to get demographic change in through the backdoor. This is an idea which is being quoted with alarming regularity and referred to with alarming regularity by conservative front benches. It's something that we see from our Equalities Minister, Kemi Batnok. It's something which Ben Bradley has been going on about. Once upon a time, this was kind of confined to the weeder corners of the internet, and now it's very much front and centre of our politics. There has always been this connection between anti-communism, McCarthyism, and the monstering of liberation movements, whether that's for gay rights, whether it was for civil rights, whether it was feminism. It's because in the political imaginary, and this also has a real strong relationship to anti-Semitism, there's this idea that decadent city dwellers who are often coded as Jewish are kind of manipulating and pulling the strings to weaken the strong foundations of Western civilization, i.e. patriarchy, i.e. heteronormativity, i.e. white supremacy. I think that this is something which, unfortunately, is not going to be confined to full-time clowns like Richard Tice. I think it's something which is going to have this kind of quite toxic drip effect on the public discourse, especially because we don't see very many people in the press willing to push back on it. When you think about the amount of bandwidth that Labour anti-Semitism stories has taken up in the last few years, you don't see anywhere near that kind of attention being paid to the fact that a well-known anti-Semitic trope and conspiracy theory around cultural Marxism is now considered part of the course amongst our governing party. BBC viewers today were lucky enough to get Ash's insights, but as you know, Navarro media viewers, get them every Monday night. If you are not already, do make sure you subscribe to the channel. On this topic, the Tories are split on how to respond, so this was George Eustace on Sunday giving his response to Millwall fans booing players taking the knee. Now, this week we saw some football fans returning to stadiums and at a Millwall game, when the players took the knee to support Black Lives Matter, there was an awful lot of booing by supporters. What was your reaction to that? Well, look, I didn't see that event. I know that, look, obviously, the issue of race and racial discrimination is something that we all take very, very seriously. My personal view is that Black Lives Matter, capital B, L and M is actually a political movement that is different to what most of us believe in, which is standing up for racial equality. But look, each individual can take their own choices about how they reflect this. And I know a lot of people feel quite strongly enough taking that approach. So that was George Eustace, the Environment Minister, very much taking the Richard Tice approach to all of this. I hadn't realised that George Eustace stood as a candidate for UKIP in 1999. Anyway, on Tory divisions, James Cleverly, Foreign Office Minister, took a different line this morning. Those players on the pitch were displaying solidarity with people who are fighting against racism in society, and that is not something that should be booed. I want to go to you again, Ash, for your analysis on this, because there's two, I suppose, interpretations of the difference between what George Eustace said and what James Cleverly said. One is that they genuinely have different beliefs. So George Eustace was a member of UKIP. He might be someone who is quite hostile to anti-racist movements in general. James Cleverly obviously a black man, so you might think he has more awareness of how racism works in this society. So it could be about their personal beliefs and commitments, or it could be that there is some confusion at the top of the Conservative Party about what the public believe.  And James Cleverly obviously spoke a day later, so potentially there were some people in the Tory party who said, no, we don't want to be that nasty party who backs Millwall fans of all people, booing black players, taking the knee in solidarity of people who are victims of police violence. I mean, I think it being a day later is really important here. So after George Eustace's comments were reported by The Guardian, The Guardian's headline did change. So I think that there was some pushback from the number 10 press office saying, well, that isn't precisely what George Eustace meant, particularly the bit which was reported as him saying that he respected the Millwall fans. It might have been a sort of gumming of the syntax and the meaning of what he actually meant to say is that he respected the Millwall players for taking the knee. So I think that there was an alertness to that backlash and a sense that he had misjudged something of the mood. And James Cleverly, regardless of whether or not what he later said reflected his personal opinion, you know, it took a very different tone. One thing that I think is really important to say is that when it comes to Black Lives Matter, you can see whatever it is you want to see based in the polling that you choose. If you ask a reactionary question about Black Lives Matter tends to be that you'll get a reactionary answer. If you pose a more sympathetic question, you will generate more sympathetic views. And I think that what this speaks to in terms of the public's view of anti-racism is that when it comes to generalised, moral, universal positions about racism, people are really into it, right? Because we've understood, particularly I think in the last 50 years, anti-racism to be questions of morality is how we remember the figure of Martin Luther King, not as a political figure so much as a moral one, an ethical one. It's almost a kind of secular saint where he's decoupled from his context somewhat and presented to everybody as a shining example of what we should all be as human beings. And then when you get into the actual specifics of what do you want people to do about racism, are some of those protest tactics going to generate tension? Is it uncomfortable to have to deal with and confront institutional racism within your society? You will get polling which will tell you that this is an incredibly divisive issue. Black Lives Matter is splitting the country. It's completely counterproductive for the cause of anti-racism in the first place. And looping it back to the point about Martin Luther King, and this is a point which I make a lot. Two-thirds of white Americans had a negative opinion of Martin Luther King. By the time he was assassinated, his approval ratings were at minus 75. And it's not just about Martin Luther King as an individual. When the march on Washington took place, there was an overwhelmingly negative view about that amongst white Americans. Same with sit-ins, same with the freedom riders. There has never been a case in which anti-racist organizing has enjoyed the majority of support amongst the dominant group. And I think that one thing that we need to get better at as the left, and as committed anti-racists, is arguing that point because there's some quite selective and scurrilous quoting of poll material at the moment around Black Lives Matter. And I think for some leftists to see the culture war and see the left's disadvantaged position on the culture war, they look at that and they go, oh, better not tread there. Or it's actually about treading smart.


Good afternoon, my check. Thank you. Good afternoon, thank you for joining this session. We should get started because we've got a full agenda. My name is Azhar Saeed. I'm one of the chief architects in the Red Hat Talco team. And joining me today in this presentation is Doug Smith. Doug and I are going to talk about scaling NFV and our containers the answer. Let's explore that particular question. But before we get into the presentation, there are a lot of people we have to acknowledge for their work. Let's start with Dan Williams. Dan, is he in the room by any chance? No? Rashid, is he in the room by any chance? No? OK, both of these guys were incredibly helpful in terms of trying to create a POC for what we are going to talk about today. And I will share that particular POC with you. And then there's another gentleman by Tomo. He's right here in the room. He's done some work with container connectors. And Ajay Simha, who had helped me with some of these slides. I don't know if he's in the room either.  So thank you very much. Thank you, Tomo. And of course, Doug, who has actually done the actual demo itself. And we're going to try to show you that demo today. Let's quickly go into the agenda. So we do a quick background in terms of how VNFs are deployed, what are the typical use cases. Very, very short introduction and background because this is part of telecom NFV operation session. So I want to make sure I put everybody on the same page. Then we dive straight into containers. What do containers do? How do they help? How well do they scale? Then we go into some scale questions. We'll ask scale questions from various different angles. And then we'll see how much of a problem do they solve and what are the open questions that we still need to solve. And then we'll show you a POC and a demo to say, how are we solving some of those problems? And of course, as a community, we'll need more people to participate in order to drive in a certain direction and we'll wrap it up with a quick summary. As you know, virtualization progression, you have seen these are all part of the introduction set of slides just to set the conversation up. You run applications of VNFs on bare metal or in virtual machines. You can also run some applications on containers. The question we are going to explore through this particular presentation is, for NFV are containers the right answer. Let's take a set of different use cases. In the use cases, if you see virtual CPE residential, virtual CPE business, or SD-WAN type of use case, or if you take on the mobile side, voice over LTE, IMS, virtual EPC, or on the GI LAN side, you can probably segment them from a wireline and mobile perspective, also from a consumer and a business perspective. You can look at the four quadrants and say, where do I need the most amount of scale? Where do I need the most number of sessions that I'm tracking? Where do I need what capability from a network functions perspective to actually go deploy my service as a telco? So those are the angles to look at from each one of these conversations. For our practical purposes, we'll just take a look at VHCPE use case and look at the residential aspect of it. In the residential use case, you're aggregating thousands of subscribers. You're looking at various different functionality that's being provided to the subscribers, whether it's incremental set of services or whether it's standard set of services through virtualizing a BNG or virtualizing the CPE. Now, what do you need to look at it from a scale point of view? You need to look at the orchestrator, you need to look at the SDN controller, you need to look at the networking components, you need to look at the VNF managers, and all of these things need to provide the capability and the service that's needed to deliver for thousands and thousands of sessions, and you need instantiation of these VNFs in the data center infrastructure or on the remote side. We are not going to deal specifically with that remote side use case. There is another presentation on Thursday you can look into where we look at multi-site open stack. So this presentation, we won't be able to explore the multi-site open stack specifically, but we'll look at specifically the scale conversations. Let's take a step back, look at what are the NFV requirements. Those NFV requirements are incredible. I mean, we need to really have a good understanding of what those NFV requirements are, and then how do they map to virtual machines and the current deployment models, and then more importantly, how do they map to the container models going forward. We need flexibility for IP addressing. This is an important topic that we need to know. Everybody takes it for granted, oh yeah, I can do DHCP, I can do Slack, I have V6 Slack, I can do private IP, public IP, overlapping IP, all those type of things. They take it for granted because it's available today, that's what they do, that's how they deploy these type of services today for virtual CPE, for residential, for business, and so on. DHCP-based address assignment and management is also something that's, you know, you'll say, yeah, this is available, this is done, it works, right? That is a requirement for NFV. Multiple interfaces assignment to a virtual machine, whether you're doing a SRIOV or whether you're doing DPDK, it doesn't matter, but you need the ability to actually emulate that hardware and provide that capability into a virtual machine. Now you need the same thing in the context of containers as well, but we'll talk about that when we get to containers. Multitenancy, and multitenancy is important because you're sharing so many different services across thousands of subscribers, whether they're business or residential, and you need multitenancy capability. From a packet forwarding perspective, you need all of those nick bonding, pneumo affinity, you know, huge page support for better latency, jumbo frames, CPU pinning, because all VNFs are not equal. You have hybrid VNFs, VNFs that actually have run some portions in containers, some portions in VMs, you have mixed apologies, you have to do load sharing, you have to have elasticity in terms of configuration. So there are lots and lots and lots of requirements for NFV or network function virtualization to work in a open stack and virtual machine environment. And people have deployed this, people have made it to work, people have actually gone through a lot of pains to get it to work and to provide the right level of performance and so on. Now let's look at some of the scale factors for those telcos. Scaling is a multidimensional problem. It's not, you know, when you start to say, I just, scaling is not about just the number of sessions. You can't say I'm gonna scale, you know, to thousands of sessions and that's it. Well, with that comes performance, with that comes QOS, with that comes service density, with that comes through, you know, orchestration scale. Management and troubleshooting scale is also important for us to understand how well will you be able to do. Are these areas visible? Are these VNFs visible to us? Do we have traceability for those particular VNFs? Also, you know, scaling the whole deployment environment itself, how do you build a CI CD pipeline to actually add new functionality, add new capability for your existing subscribers?  So it's not just about the size of scale, meaning how many, it's also the speed of scale, which is how fast you can do these things. Let's take that, go back to our residential services example of the VCPE and see what happens.  Now you can get in half rack heights, you know, boxes, dedicated hardware boxes that provide half a million sessions, 300,000 sessions, easy. When you enable all the bells and whistles with respect to QoS, with respect to, you know, all of the functionality, maybe you can cut that number down to about 100, 200,000. Again, it varies by vendor, you know, some vendors will say, yeah, I can support half a million with QoS and so on. Sure. What you have to also look at is, what's the size of that box? What's the footprint of that box? What's the bandwidth you can serve in terms of the number of subscribers? What is happening at the end? If you look at the access networks is with G-Pon, the subscriber bandwidth is rising up, right? You're going up in that from single gig connections or 100 meg connections to now tens of gigs of connections. If you take then do, you know, the average statistics and say, how many connections do I have active? How many subs per connection? Now, for those of you who have designed mobile networks, even though you designed it for LTE, the average bandwidth per sub that you take from a design perspective is much smaller than typically what you advertise for an LTE. You do the same math here. You do oversubscription. You do, you design this particular network and you say, OK, how many sessions do I need to serve simultaneously? Then when you take that, you can then translate that into how many virtual machines do I need? Then from the number of virtual machines, then you translate that to how many servers do I need? And you can very quickly say, if you have just 50,000 active subs with all of the QoS, with all of the capabilities, today you can easily fit that 50,000 subs in a quarter height or half rack dedicated box. If you want to do that on a virtual machine, how many QoS do you need? How much memory do you need? How many machines do you need to be able to actually scale that particular virtual machine up for VBNG? BT did an interesting test and they found out that they couldn't actually support about 3,000 subscribers on a server with all of the bells and whistles. Now if you want to do 50,000, 100,000, 150,000, you're talking about footprint size that it increases pretty rapidly. So then what do you do? Can you scale that in a many number of VMs and keep scaling horizontally and throw more hardware to the problem? Well, no. What happens is pretty quickly, your cost efficiency and all of the dynamics that we were thinking about with respect to virtualization and with respect to NFV goes out of the window. So then enter containers. Then the question becomes, can containers help address that particular scale problem? First, let's understand what are those containers? Containers is basically a software packaging concept that include applications and all its runtime dependencies. Of course, lower virtualization overhead, lower memory footprint, instantaneous restart time, potentially much faster than a virtual machine word. Perhaps even lower latency if you want to actually talk about intercontainer communication through IPC because of a shared memory model. You can then potentially pack higher density because container runs as a process inside that particular hardware. You can encapsulate various different microservices in containers. Portability is available. If you use a standard container format, then you can use standard container capabilities like Docker containers orchestrated via Kubernetes. Deterministic packaging models. And you can accomplish reasonable isolation with C names and groups. Let's do a quick comparison of containers and VMs first before we get into NFV with containers. As we all know, in terms of VMs, VMs require their own host operating system. They run on top of Hypervisor. So you have particularly an overhead in terms of the guest operating system that actually is there inside a virtual machine. Whereas on a container, container runs in that same host, you can have something like a Docker engine that behaves quote-on-quote like a Hypervisor but actually containers are natively as a process on the host. Docker engine provides some certain capabilities and separations. There is no Hypervisor there. You have isolation through C names. They are considered much more lighter weight. And I have some specific examples to show you what is the difference we're talking about between a VM and a container for exact same metrics. You can orchestrate these containers by Kubernetes. And typical expectation is they probably scale better than 10x in the context of VMs versus containers. Then the question becomes, do you run containers natively on the host?   Well, the answer is it depends on what your environment is and where are you migrating from. Do you have containers natively available for those network functions to be able to run? Do you have the network functions re-architected in such a way that you can actually run them as containers appropriately? And do you have all the capabilities to run them? Maybe you go to a hybridized model. I was talking to a bunch of service providers in a room. And they turned around and told me, look, it's very hard for us to tell our VNF vendors to provide containers for those VNFs. I said, why? Oh, because they've done so much of tuning with their VNFs and the guest OS that comes with it as part of virtual machine that they're having a hard time trying to standardize on a common platform and actually apply all of those tuning capabilities. I said, well, you know what? Please introduce us to them. We would like to talk to them. We'd like to figure out a way to actually put those optimizations in the host OS and actually provide that capability. But it was sad to see in a way that a service provider was resigned to what a VNF vendor was offering, rather than actually turning them around and saying, hey, if you don't do it, I'll go to somebody else who can actually do it. So VNF re-architecting becomes important. So now let's explore that idea of containers and VNFs and let's explore where the problem set is, what are we doing, and how are we doing it? First, a lot of people look at containers a la VMs, use containers like a virtual machine. The question is, does that really work? What are the challenges to make that work? And what are we going to do about it and how are we going to do that? Leveraging dockerization of functions, right? There are some functions, network functions that are already available via Docker images. You can just get it out from the Docker repo or a library and start to use them right away. How well do they scale? Do they perform as much? No, we don't know that. You may have to do some of that testing and you may have to do some of that work. What you're doing really on that VNF that has already been dockerized or containerized is you're using that as like a VM lock, stock, and barrel. So in other words, the VNF has not been rearchitected to meet a microservices model or a container model. So you're limited to some of the capabilities that it provides in terms of how somebody has created a container out of it with respect to putting wrappers around the existing application. It is intuitive to apply, so people always assume, yeah, sure, it'll work. Let's now revisit our requirements that we put out and say, what happens when you run it with containers? What works, what doesn't work? So I've just put some check marks and cross marks to say, flexibility of IP address management. Anybody who's playing around with Docker and Kubernetes will tell you that the IP addressing model of Docker and Kubernetes is very rigid. What does it do? It creates a default gateway. It does an automatic address assignment each time you restart a new container. You can do it in host mode where you're exposing all your host interfaces to the containers. You can do it in bridge mode where it's actually isolating some of the things. You can do it in Mac VLAN mode. Any of those modes that you choose, it's one interface per container. The addressing is all predetermined in terms of the private addressing, regardless of what bridge do you create and what do you use. It's always knotted. So the flexibility of IP addressing, private IP, overlapping IP, multiple interfaces, doesn't work. You have to play around with the code to make it work. And one of that is what Doug's going to show you today, how you do that. Multitenancy and management overlays, perhaps you can accomplish that using Kubernetes. Things like nick bonding, num affinity, vCPU allocations. Because remember, all of these VNFs are not created equal. All workloads are not created equal in this particular context. So what do you have to do? Well, you need the ability to assign CPUs to certain VNFs. If that VNF is running containers, now you need those containers pinned to certain type of CPUs. There are VNFs there that require eight cores, 16 cores. If you have containers that are running those type of VNFs, now you need to be able to assign multiple CPUs to that particular container for the processing power that you need for those set of VNFs. Hybrid VNFs here, probably you can make that work again in a container model if you're not too worried about the networking model itself. Mixed topologies, also you can make that work. Load sharing and scale. How do you orchestrate those set of containers? And how do you specify this? See, Docker and Kubernetes do a great job of masking that complexity because all you're trying to do is deploy a web app on those. So they mask that complexity, which is awesome for the type of applications that we need. But when we go to network function virtualization, it's quite the opposite. You need traceability, you need packet traceability. You need the ability to understand what's happening, where are things getting dropped. So one of the telcos that I was talking to give me this definition says, hey, maybe what I can do is not worry too much about all of these data planes issues and just look at some of the control functions and containerize them. Sure you can do that. They actually said there are some VNFs that are control plane heavy. There are some VNFs that are data plane heavy. Wherever I don't have a requirement for those multiple interfaces, multiple addresses, and all I'm worried about is signal processing and some CPU allocations. Maybe I can use those type of VNFs and lead them to containerization a lot faster, a lot easier. Yeah, that's an approach. But what will that do when we talk about, remember, we started this conversation with scaling VNFs? If you're not gonna be able to look at VNFs holistically, rearchitect them, containerize them appropriately in a cloud-native manner, then it is not gonna work. It's not gonna help you. So that's an important thing. Let's do a quick sizing and do a quick comparison. Here's an anecdotal example, right? We did this in our lab. We're just running a simple stock image of Viada OS distribution that's available online.  The amount of memory that it consumes is about 387 meg per instance that I instantiate in terms of that particular Viada OS. I have a containerized version of that Viada OS as well. The amount of memory it consumes is about 34 meg per instance. I can fire up 10 Viada OS instances or 20 Viada OS instances by a simple script, and it comes up in less than 10 seconds. So it's definitely, from that point of view, much smaller footprint, much faster, and I can restart in a matter of a couple of seconds, two seconds, three seconds, four seconds, something like that, and the whole thing is running. I haven't actually measured, for example, BGP reconnect time when I kick down a Viada OS container and then bring it back up, but I'm sure people have actually measured that, or if you go and measure it, it is again really much, much faster. So the size of the container changes a little bit in terms of how large it configures. When I started to configure a whole bunch of a whole bunch of BGP sessions and IGP sessions, and I could see the container size growing a little bit, but nevertheless it was still much, much smaller than what you typically see. So this is kind of, you can achieve easily from a six to 10x type of density in the same memory, CPU footprint in the context of containers. At least that's what we saw. Let's take a look at forwarding performance. Now forwarding performance of containers, you can use namespaces to isolate functions, network namespaces for containers to see their individual set of resources, but kernel forwarding, a kernel stack becomes incredibly important in this situation, and you can use a software such like Mac VLAN. These days there's also some work to have OBS with containers, with container networking to make it work, and then there's also some interesting conversation going around DPDK acceleration for that. Orchestrating those set of containers, you can orchestrate them using Kubernetes. Of course, Kubernetes has proven out to scale from an orchestration perspective for different apps, in enterprise IT, as well as in over the top providers, whether it's Google or whether it's Facebook or somebody else, even Red Hat has a large amount of exposure in terms of how Kubernetes orchestrates thousands and thousands of containers. Scaling the number of parts with respect to this, that's, again, Kubernetes works fairly well in that. You have hundreds of nodes, 3,000 parts for VNF deployment that you can actually see. And then, of course, you use something like COLA Ansible to actually containerize the OpenStack control processes as well. NFE does replace, in the interest of time, I'm just gonna skip and talk a little bit about the control functions of OpenStack and how they can be containerized. You can run OpenShift or Kubernetes on top of OpenStack. You can use something like Courier to connect to the neutron interfaces and actually manage those containers through Neutron as part of that particular API. Magnum will allow you to actually manage container orchestration engines as an OpenStack native service. And COLA will allow you to actually containerize the OpenStack control plane itself. So with this whole container orchestration model, you can not only just containerize the OpenStack control functions, you can use the same Kubernetes model to actually now go manage those containers that are running virtual network functions. And then the last point before we get into the POC and the demo conversation is subscriber service chaining. Well, you can take, for VNF functions or for residential services or business services or mobile services to be stitched together, you need to actually take these VNFs and stitch them together. How do the service function chaining work in the container context? Well, in the container context, if those VNF functions are on the same host, you can use IPC to stitch them together. You can actually do orchestrated service chain through Kubernetes itself. And that's what we're gonna show you as part of one of the POCs that are in a few slides. And then when you look at different hosts, you can definitely do the same standard model of VLAN, VXLAN and map those. Let me quickly walk you through. So remember I showed you a whole bunch of requirements in the beginning in terms of NFV. Now we can map those requirements over into containers. We need multiple interfaces, that's important. Docker or Kubernetes model today does not provide that to you, so we need to make that happen. You need physical NICs and SRIOV interfaces to be associated directly with containers. You need DPDK-enabled applications to work in that particular environment. We need flexible IP addresses to work. It's a reasonably flat architecture with some deterministic memory CPU allocation models and V6 support. So there's again, the list goes on. I have an interesting, with the help of one of the product managers we put together an interesting epic to actually define all those requirements and start to prioritize them and then see how much of that capability we can actually develop and commit it upstream. Sorry, so this is what we did in terms of a POC. We actually took a bunch of containers, assigned multiple interfaces to that, modified that code where you can assign multiple different interfaces to containers, stitched the containers together into a service chain through orchestration and then actually run traffic end to end. This is again to prove out the concept of that virtual CPE architecture that I started with. You know how it works internally where here's a firewall or virtual router that's sitting inside a container. We've used the kernel networking stack here. DPDK is optional at the moment. I don't think we've done that work yet. We've assigned multiple interfaces to that particular container where you have administrator defined IP address instead of the default addressing model. And then you have service chaining through, excuse me, service chaining through VE with an SFC endpoint, again with an administrator defined IP address and of course another interface that actually talks to a management SDN plane. So this is the features that it works on today, static V6 support, simple service function chains, flexible addressing. There's no bridging or SDN involved here. There are no default Docker networking models involved here. And we do multiple interfaces per container and then we assign a particular container to a CPU for the CPU pinning capability that I described to you earlier. There's a lot of work that needs to be done still in this. No more affinity needs to work. IPv6 Slack, this is the automatic addressing capability for IPv6, right? Dynamic service function chain, network service header work and additional SRIOV enhancements. And our goal is to get this to upstream as part of one of the SDN plugins with respect to Kubernetes and that's work. Now I'm gonna hand over quickly to Doug. Doug and Ajay have been doing some work internally to prove this particular multiple interface model. Over to you Doug. Thank you, Ajay, appreciate it. All right, so here we're looking at an architecture of what I'm about to show you at the kernel, or at the kernel in the terminal. So the deal here is what is so important about what we're going to show here. Azar touched on it and the deal is yes, you can use just a plain Docker, do a Docker run, have and assign multiple nets to it, but you're not actually going to have isolation between these containers. So what we've set up here as a demo is we've got two container hosts and on these hosts we're going to run containers and we're going to run Quaga as a cloud router between each of these. One, we're gonna have an open stack and if you're curious, this is in particular, this is a bare metal host provisioned by Ironic and then on AWS we're going to have an open shift instance running containers. Between these two instances, we're going to have a VXLAN interface that connects them so that we can route this over the WAN. As you can tell in each of these containers here, you'll see interfaces here with RFC 1918 style addresses between them, but then we also have given them some aliases here to represent what might be a real world WAN IP address. So you'll see from left to right a <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.2.2 going down to <IP_ADDRESS>. So CentOS A and CentOS B in this diagram represents some end points here that we're gonna route traffic from. You might, for a simple example, think of these as some type of service that's gonna consume, say, HTTP from Nginx on CentOS B. So we'll take traffic from CentOS A, we'll hop across the two routers, which are using OSPF between the two of them, and we'll route it to CentOS B. Well, how are we accomplishing this if this isn't technology that's available natively in, say, Docker today? Oops. We're going to use primarily a application that's called COCO that's been written by my associate Tomofumi Heishi, who's here with us today. And what this allows us to do is actually go ahead and connect either vEath or vXlan interfaces to the network namespaces that the containers are using. And we also have implemented this preliminarily as a CNI plugin. CNI is Container Network Interface that's used by Kubernetes and other things, but so we have that. So what does COCO do? Takes your two containers and connects them. So COCO Container Connector is how we got the name and that's what it's like. So moving on to the demo, I'm going to switch here. All right, so looking at the terminal here, we have got, I've got two tabs open. This one here that says a doctor octagon four is the Centos host. It's bare metal provisioned by Ironic. It's just a Docker host. So if I do a Docker PS, I'm going to see two containers running here. We have a Centos A and a Quagga A, not exactly the best display out there, but on the very far right wrapping to the line. And that represents the first two containers on the left in the architecture diagram. And then this host here with the funny host name is our open shift host. So if I say OC get pods, which is an open shift command, I can see that I have a Centos B and a Quagga B instance here. So let's take a look here at first Centos A and we'll look at the interfaces in here. You'll see that there's two interfaces here. A loopback and then this interface called in one. That in one is a VEETH connection to Quagga A and it's a VEETH to this interface into here in Quagga A. So and then we have the mid one interface in link show mid one. This is a VXLAN interface and you can see that it's remote is this WAN IP address going out to AWS. And reciprocally, we have an open shift here. If I look at Quagga B, we have this VXLAN which points in reverse to the other end. So and we also have that VXLAN or VEETH connection between Quagga B and Centos B. So we can do it either local to the machine or over the network should we need to. And to show it in action, if we can go ahead and ping from our Centos A which is a 1.1.1 routed to Centos B which we have numbered as <IP_ADDRESS> and there we go. We've got that coming across and then we'll show you that there is a trace route as well so you can see that it's hopping across these two Quagga instances here. This is also available on GitHub as well. So we've got on GitHub Cocoa Container Connector, Ratchet, CNI implementation of this and then also Ansible Playbook that we call ZebraPen for the containerized Quagga which is a type of Zebra, I believe it's extinct. And so you could actually spin this up yourself and take a deeper look should you so please. So that's what I've got, thank you guys. Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Doug. So what you saw there was actually containers that were sitting in AWS and containers that are sitting in here in local host and you actually saw a live demo that goes and each container had multiple interfaces that were signed. So we are not using the typical Docker networking model. So then just summarizing what are the challenges that you see with using containers for VNFs? We didn't talk about security at all. That's probably a topic that we can put another session in at the next OpenStack Summit and see if that's of interest to people. What's the risk? They run with the kernel stack. What's the optimizations? How do you do namespace isolation? How do you do C-groups isolation, right? How do you achieve multi-tenancy? How do you achieve some of the network specific functions and now you're intruding into the host TCP stack? So in terms of OAM, in terms of do we need to redefine some of those architectures? So these are questions that we need to further explore, but overall, we do believe that containers can achieve much better scalability than the typical VMs. They need to be designed as such in order to be able to achieve that level of scalability. You can't take a default model and say, oh, I have a container image, I'm gonna make it run and it's gonna run optimally, right? They do provide a much smaller footprint. Some VNFs maybe need to re-written to take account of this whole microservices architecture and the microservices model to run with containers. I know that Verizon, for example, showed you an interesting presentation yesterday where they containerized a whole bunch of services on that micro-CPE that was part of the keynote and also part of the session. That's interesting, and I think that's probably the model a lot of people will drive towards in future. You can use Courier to actually interact with the open-stacks, native open-stack set of services and we still need more work to do in the context of things like NUMA, things like dynamic service chains and more flexibility in terms of the V6 address assignment and so on. So that's what we had for you. Hope this was interesting. We have, I think, five minutes for questions. We'd be happy to take any questions. I wanted to ask Doug about the demo in the containers CentOS A and CentOS B. Who was placing the routes towards the service for the chaining? Was it Coco? So the routing was determined by OSPF in Quagga, but the actual chain of interfaces between one another is Coco. So it was Coco that... So the VF, yeah, is put by Coco itself. Yeah, that's correct, yep. So yeah, and in this case, when we've provisioned it with Ansible, we've said we run Coco from the CLI and we say, okay, hey, Coco, I wanna create a vEath pair between these two network namespaces and with this IP address assignment and we say that statically. Otherwise, if we were doing it with CNI during the process where it says interface add or interface delete, then you could potentially do it in more of a dynamic way. Right, that was the follow-up question that I have is it would probably be interesting to have, there's a lot of contention now about the multi-network proposal in Kubernetes to be able to define those things in a declarative way so that then the CNI could pick it up and would be able to set that up because if I understood correctly, now you're calling Coco out of band, like you stay still that bold thing. That is correct, that is correct. So one of the things we're also looking into is actually just enhancing the SDN plug-in itself, right? So the POC that I showed you earlier before the Doug jumped into the Coco specific demo, that approach is actually much more in line with what is being discussed in Kubernetes. Unfortunately, I didn't have something to show you live, but that is available. If anybody's interested, then we can certainly come and talk and we'll be more than happy to work with you closely. Yeah, well, thanks. Thank you. Yep. I hope we have still a few minutes. Sure, two minutes according to my clock, so. Okay, so my question is, as you know in Kubernetes, you cannot spin up a container with multiple interfaces. That's right. We probably need to use, okay, at least what I'm aware of is you can try multi-CNI or something like that. That's correct. But again, there are limitations. Like, how do you make it work with SRIOV and something like that? That's absolutely right. So in this demo, what was used? Was these containers, especially that your Kuga, something which had multiple interfaces, were they spinned up using Kubernetes and some special CNI or did it manually? Like after creating the containers, you run some scripts and out of Kubernetes or Kade Kubernetes out of bounds. So two things, one, let me just explain. So I explained to you there are three slides in terms of the POC, the Provo Concept. That is primarily via Kubernetes. That was not shown today. That's the approach that we will take and move forward with. What was shown today to you was using Coco. So maybe Doug, you can just walk through. Absolutely. So in this particular demo, what we did is we spun up the containers and then we ran Coco essentially manually with Ansible. However, in the ratchet CNI plugin that I mentioned, we actually use the same exact concept as multi-CNI uses, where what they're doing is they're calling the delegate add functionality, which allows them to specify multiple plugins. Essentially, it's sort of like a meta plugin. Yeah, it's a meta CNI and it just changed them. Right. Okay, so I understand this part. And the second thing is another thing which probably there is a lot of debate going in Kubernetes communities about the CPU pinning and those aspects. So as I see in your presentation also, is there any work you people planning to do on that? So the POC actually does have the ability to pin that container to a given CPU. That's the POC that I spoke about, yes. When will it make upstream? I don't know. I'm working with the developers to get it. And I think it's part of the Kubernetes conversation. So yes. And one final last question from my side. Okay, we're out of time, but... Okay, go ahead. For SRIOV, again, as you know, we need to do some kind of a bookkeeping for the VF, how many VFs per node are allocated, how many available. That's right. Retrieve them back. The SRIOV CNI currently available in community doesn't do that pretty well. Or at least it doesn't let the, should you learn how many VFs and VFs are available? So is there work going on that? That's an enhancement that we still need to do. That was part of my list in terms of work still that needs to be done. Okay. Sure. Thank you. I may say in Kubernetes somebody sent a patch for SRIOV. And it will end up doing the management of the SRIOV devices if you want to. Okay. Just to add, we are looking at the OPEC integer resource feature to be able to do that and doing some POC with that. Maybe we can collaborate and work upstream for that. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much.


boom What's up money geeks? Mr. V here. Welcome to another video guys. So in this video, we're going to do a quick review of some of the trades that I did today. Friday I'm just going to go through them and break it down and hopefully you guys can learn a thing or two from my mistakes And move forward. So um, I guess you can see here Our he came big for us. There was I mean a lot of opportunities there I mean if I could have stayed in the trade a little bit longer Again guys, I say that but I'm not Telling you to stay in the trade. I'm just saying you see those opportunities hindsight is 2020 That's what I'm trying to say there But anyways, those are some of the trades that I did. We're going to take a look there. You can see iht the bottom there We took an l on that one. So we're going to break those down and see how I did before we get started guys if you're new to the channel We took about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So if that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell So you don't miss out on new content. So let's jump right in here and just kind of take a look at Uh, some of the trades that we did here. So the first one was um, our he So we'll pull this up here. So Right at open you can see this thing came out swinging just prior to Open it started gapping up. So i'm looking at this like huh because I didn't have these on my watch list Look at this pre market. There was pretty much it was pretty flat. No volume nothing. Look at that It was just flat and then just a few minutes to open he said to squeeze up a little bit So I had it on my radar I'm looking to see what was going to happen there and then right at open It just went crazy, right at open I I'm looking it's like hey, what's going on here? It popped So I gave a little bit of opportunity again to right here. Um, I see now open around 17 Um, squeeze all the way to 18 right there and then this candle right here Um, you know breaks up to 18 and some change. So I'm thinking, hmm Maybe this is not a good trade. So I waited right here. I didn't I didn't get in the trade So I held my ground because I wanted to see more confirmation and then look at this bar coding right here Stated right on vwap. And so this is what got me excited because um, we had some volume At the same time it didn't break down from vwap. It stayed right on vwap So I just kept watching this one closely and then right here this green candle As you can see if you look at um, my indicators right here Stochastic right here crosses My my k crosses to the upside. So I got excited. So I was looking for this new candle right here This one is a little bit red to be green But that didn't give me the confirmation. So I waited right here. This one starts to squeeze That's where I got in Right here and then I wrote this baby all the way up to 21 and some change around 21 80 or so And took my first profit and then Again, you know how that works you wait it pulls back Right here. This almost got me to almost tricked me right here To get back in the trade So I thought it was going to be a bounce because stochastic crosses right here So I thought it was going to be a bounce but I held my grounds Because I was hoping that if we if it was a bounce I wanted to see it break the high that was here, but it didn't break that high. So I'm like, hey, I'm gonna wait So pulled back in there right here. This is another opportunity that I got in So look at where it crosses stochastic crosses right here k to the upside now. I'm watching this one closely It still Wasn't giving me a great opportunity Right here and this one I when I got in this trade Here I actually had a really tight stop loss And so I got in right here around 21 50 and this thing just kind of rocketed all the way to 23 23 50 And so I got out at the very tip up there and then it went in 33 80 before pulling back So I didn't make it all the way to 23 80 because boy, I just I had I had profit And I already made some money off of the trade and I didn't want to give anything back I took the profit and got out and then it just kind of Pulled back and if you can see from there Pulled back and got below vwap and I was like, you know Call me when you get above vwap. So you guys know, I don't trade below vwap. I don't like it um So and nothing really happened there and that was that was it for for that particular stock h e and guys remember, um, we we trade the stock this past week and um, I actually You know put some numbers out there. I kept saying this thing looks like it's probably going to go test Uh, 25 dollars, um, but he got 23 80 and so I don't think this thing is completely done It's probably going to regroup here. Um, so I'm going to be watching it I'm not going to get this one off my watch list as a matter of fact I'm just going to keep my eye on it. So, um, yeah, so that was that was a good one So we made some really good money off of this good trade. So I love that one and then um, ac st This one look at it. I have it. I had it on the watch list. Um into the open Um market opens it gapped up a little bit and then flushes, but I didn't trade it here Um, I treat this one pre market. So this is where I traded this one I think I treat this one somewhere. Um, right here Uh, yeah, I think somewhere around here. I'm trying to figure I guess I treat this one early in the morning and so but it's not only made like a hundred and 20 bucks 119 whatever that was. So I treat it right here. Um, and again, the thing with trading pre market is that Is very choppy. You don't have your bracket orders. So as soon as you get in the trade, um, if you see in the profit I try this to get that profit as soon as possible because if the thing reverses And there's no volume You can get stuck in the trade and not be able to get out. So, um, I only try to Take opportunities that would give me, um, entry and exit. Um, when there's a little bit of volume Even though there wasn't that much volume here, but I traded this, um, all the way up to Um, I think all the way up to 580 I got out about 580 because then I went to 590 Um, then I got out around 580 and took that profit and the way this one works is like, um With regular hours, uh, I would normally put, um, my take either Take profit and stop loss together if the stock is moving slow if it's moving quickly now to use hot keys But, um, after hours or pre market I can use a hard key just to put, uh, a sell order. That's it. I can't do a stop loss So I'll just do a sell order and that will sell and get me out. Um, but just when I actually so when I got in I just I just went ahead and created a sell order and my target that was, uh, to get all the way to 60 cents It never did it got to 580 and then said slowing down Volume slowed down a little bit. I'm like, so if you can see here, this is this this volume candle right here spike all the way up Got to 580 590 look at volume drops and I'm like, okay I should take my profit here and get out. So, uh, if you can see even after hours I still trade above vwap. I don't like trading below vwap just because I like trading momentum. Um, where you're trading below vwap It hasn't just a particular stock hasn't decided exactly where you want to go If I'm trading below vwap that stock can you can go in the stock besides to keep going down And you can keep getting losing trades and I don't like that So at least, um, on this side you're trading the momentum on the upside As opposed to trying to speculate, um underneath vwap. So that's that one and then petix That's another one that I traded and this one I traded this one Um, after hours, let's bring it up here as you can see Uh, after hours, uh, it just started gapping right here. And this one I I mean, I didn't even think that I was going to get fail Um, surprisingly, I got fill in boy. Was that lucky in this one because um, I put an order Right here and this thing failed me a little bit below vwap Which is not what I wanted because I just had to hear waiting I had my order here waiting so that, uh, when you give me confirmation, then I would jump right in but, um Surprisingly, uh, it just failed me. I don't know because you don't even see it happening again After I was a little bit tricky to trade or pre-market. So I got fail somewhere here about $2 and 34 cents um, and then I just held it a squeeze up all the way to two dollars and um, I think like two dollars and 69 or 70 cents somewhere around there um, so that's where I got out and then uh, it pulled back here and never Really give me any other opportunity again, but I didn't want to keep trading because I already made some profit And I was sort of pretty good for the day. So I didn't want to ruin it But this this was one of the trades where I didn't really I wasn't really excited because at first off Um, I just put my order here waiting Got caught and then uh, again, it worked in my favor But that's not something that I like. So this particular trade Um, of all the trades when I go back and review my trades, this is one that I'm going to be like, okay Next time don't put your order so close because you can get filled without You wanting to be filled at that particular time? And then we have IHT This is the one that smacked me in the face. So we can scroll back here. Um, I can show you guys. So look at this thing This is insane. Um, so a market opened. Look at it pretty flat at open Nothing is happening. And then somewhere right here around 9 30 my time, uh, CST Instead of gapping and um, so I got it on my scanner. It's like, okay, this is looking good. So I said watching it Um, but the mistake I made on this one is I I didn't take a trade Along this I think I might a trade I took worse I took a trade somewhere around here because if you can see right here Um, it crosses V web right here. I'm looking at this confirmation. Good volume So I got in it spiked up here and this one I got in using hotkeys So it's spiked up here and I'm sitting there waiting like hey I want to see it spike again because the high at that particular point Uh was five dollars and 20 cents. So I wanted it to set a new high um, and then so I held in there and right here it flushes Um, like, you know what? I didn't want to take a chance and I got out And then took on to an L but it just bounced back again. I should have waited a little bit But I didn't want to I just use my hotkeys and got out ASAP again, um, when you're doing trades like this hindsight is 2020 So I try to go with my my initial reaction what I would do Um to prevent any um excessive loss in a trade. So I yeah, I'm just trying to be very very careful and be smart about Making sure I don't get into a terrible trade when I don't have to So and then look at this. I didn't trade this one. But look at that spike I can volume came in like like crazy spiked out of from like 480 all the way to 570 Man that would have been sweet and then barcode it up there. I didn't look at that knife The same way it went up. It came down the same way. So it went to a high of six dollars and then crashed Like complete. So if you were sitting in this trade here without a stop loss Man That would have been a sad day for you.  Um, and I know a lot of you guys have been asking What are what indicators I have on my screen? So you can see right here. I have stochastic I have volume down here. I have maxi and now sometimes I interchange them with rsi Depending on how the market is going that day For me, so but stochastic Vwap and volume are constant and then I go between maxi and rsi depending on the day So those are the indicators that I'm using here. So again guys, um, it was a good day If if anything guys, I'll simply say if you're starting out you have The opportunity to learn how to do this But don't learn with a ton of position take smaller position size I don't care if you just do five Um, if you just do five Shares if you can take five shares that would be good enough. So again, be very very careful with your trade Yeah, let me know in the comment section if you do have any any questions If you're new to the channel which cover how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth There's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell So you don't miss out on new content. Also, if you're looking to get started with investing guys Webo has their promotion where if you sign up and deposit hundred dollars You get free stocks links in the description below and as always guys Do your due diligence.


So, we have analyzed exporter facile, we have also analyzed a solution developed by Brazil which is called importer facile. We have identified the gaps to be filled in at the UPU level in terms of operational processes in terms of supply chain tools, in terms of cooperation model for all postal organizations to be working together for the same objective delivering performance to companies in any country. And we came out with some recommendations that we have discussed with Brazil and other countries that have adopted exporter facile and importer facile and we have identified where we can add value to those initiatives to make sure that worldwide companies will have access to good easy export solutions, easy import solutions. It is very important for the UPU because we are dealing with universal service delivery network to make sure that all of the parties involved in service delivery will be acting on performance and accountability. This means that capacity building, transferring knowledge is very important. The initiative from Brazil is a very good one that we need to transfer to other countries so that other postal operators in those countries will be able to deliver easy export solutions. But we know that within the universal service delivery network there are strong links, there are also weak links that is due to the level of development and to the level of capacity at national level. And through our technical cooperation strategy we need to make sure that the weakest links in the service delivery network we will be able to assist them to build up the capacities to be in a position to also deliver to the national economies but also to the rest of the world. There is one thing that is very important, we don't talk about it much. We have to acknowledge that the success of any national postal operator depends also on the performance of all actors in the chain. This means that if the post in Brazil is very good, that is actually the case. I congratulate Brazil for that. But sending goods to many countries if the postal operator there is not good enough, the customer, the exporting small and medium company in Brazil will suffer from the quality of service at the other end. And to end service delivery through high standard quality of service. Committing all of the partners is a challenge that we at the UPU we want to take care of. Thank you very much. Hi Ed, from Qatar. I have a very brief question. Is an Arab country which has wanted to adopt this product or whether Brazil has proposed this product to an Arab country? Thank you. Many countries have sought cooperation. Not one country specifically though. It's our intention is to develop a methodology which will support Arab countries that wish to introduce export of facile. From our point of view, I'm speaking in Portuguese now, I'm sorry. We can't lose sight of the facts, but when we talk about introducing export of facile, we need to take account of the fact that each country has a different export of facile from its neighbors. We're not talking about introducing export of facile in a unified manner, in the same ways it's been introduced in Brazil. We're talking in South America, for example, about taking a stock of local conditions and look what needs to be done beforehand in terms of infrastructure, because the population structure might not be ready for introduction of export of facile, and we need to develop a tailor-made product for each country. When we talk about small enterprises in Brazil, we'd be really surprised with things that happen following the introduction of a program. There are big businesses which also use export of facile, they use this to export small volumes, for example, in the car sector. I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about another aspect here. It's a very important aspect. We want to develop a set of other products in conjunction with other countries. With United Arab Emirates, for example, projects involving e-commerce and customs, and the opportunity through this project to work with the UPU, we can integrate this with other projects and will allow each country to achieve desired results afterwards. Do we have a similar situation with the Gulf countries as a whole? Can the Latin American countries as a whole? Could we find an appropriate solution for the Gulf countries as a whole? I think that export of facile is a good solution for the countries of a Gulf. For a country which is to strengthen its small enterprise sector, and wants products to be exported through this channel, I think it's an excellent solution for the Latin American region, for the countries of the Gulf too, of course. Brazil, the countries of the Gulf region, should want to develop the export of facile in conjunction with the UPU, and I think we can do some very good work by working together on this. I will make just one comment at the UPU level. Now that we have adopted a resolution about making easy export solution universal throughout the postal network, the UPU will develop programs to make sure that all regions will be able to access solutions in terms of easy export, and the UPU is working also with Brazil. We do have a memorandum of understanding whereby we will be working all together to make sure that the UPU regional programs will be able to design specific technical cooperation activities to support all countries in the specific regions. Thank you. Just a final comment. The export of facile project is good for all countries. I forgot to mention before when I spoke that it generates employment. In many countries there are people who aren't able to work on a stable basis at the moment, and there are groups of people getting together, craftsmen, and they're producing actually far more than can be exported at the moment, and this is one of the essential aspects of export to facile projects. It allows the volumes of goods exported to be increased. Thank you. Maybe Brazil export is the only issue that you are supporting, and my second question is what's the level of support you provide generally to developing countries, and if you have an example of supporting one or two countries, can you cite it please? In the easy export solution area, we are actually not supporting Brazil, but we are working with Brazil to take advantage of their knowledge and the processes they have put in place. So Brazil is a partner for us in that specific program. You may know that at the UPU level there is a very important directorate in charge of technical cooperation that is called, if I remember, directorate responsible for cooperation to development, and at that level we do have original programs focusing on specific regions, including Arab countries, African countries, Latin, American, Caribbean, East Europe, Asia. So we have programs tailored to take, to act on the specific needs of the many countries in those specific regions. And the support given by the UPU in the technical cooperation area will embrace many things from supply chain tools to be put in place, capacity building in terms of knowledge, operational things such as quality of service improvement, development of new product and services. There are many, many areas where the UPU, the International Bureau is supporting the developing countries, and the support given to the developing countries sometimes also tailored to their specific needs because in those regions not all countries are equal in terms of demand, in terms of needs, in terms of requirements. So if you go through the UPU you will find your way through and you will find the people who will be able to address your specific needs. Regarding easy export solutions, we at the UPU level, we have not started yet to support the member countries and the executive postal operators to put in place easy export solutions. Because in the past what we did we were working with Brazil to identify, to understand what it is, to know where we need to add value and to compare the solutions to the specific needs of countries. And we came out with specific proposals for Congress to consider. And we are happy enough to see that Congress has adopted the recommendation by the International Bureau and the UPU, by the POC of course. And the next period starting 1 January next walk will be implementation, design first of programs for member countries and implementation to make sure that all countries willing to progress will be able to implement easy export solution in their own environment with the support of those countries that have the experience such as Brazil and other Latin American countries that have adopted