Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17

GROW                                                  M. Srivastava, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Liu
Expires: 6 June 2026                                        China Mobile
                                                             C. Lin, Ed.
                                                    New H3C Technologies
                                                                   J. Li
                                                            China Mobile
                                                         3 December 2025

        Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
                  draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17

Abstract

   RFC 7854 defines different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) statistics
   message types to observe events that occur on a monitored router.
   This document defines new statistics type to monitor BMP Adj-RIB-In
   and Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information Bases (RIBs).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 June 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RIB Monitoring Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Statistics Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition  . . . .   7
   4.  Application Scope of Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Juniper Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  New H3C Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Section 4.8 of [RFC7854] defines a number of different BGP Monitoring
   Protocol (BMP) statistics types to observe major events that occur on
   a monitored router.  Stats are either counters or gauges.
   Section 6.2 of [RFC8671] also defines several BMP statistics types
   for Adj-RIB-Out of a monitored router.

   New BMP statistics types are needed to enable more refined BGP route
   monitoring and analysis, improving operational maintenance and
   troubleshooting capabilities.

   This document defines gauges for new BMP statistics.  The
   applicability scope of these new gauges (Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out,
   Loc-RIB) is provided in Section 4.  The format of the BMP statistics
   message remains same as defined in [RFC7854].

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.  The BCP14 is used to stress importance for
   operators but are not required as formal implementation requirement.

2.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   *  Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains
      unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the
      local BGP speaker by its peers."

   *  Pre-policy Adj-RIB-In: The result before applying the inbound
      policy to an Adj-RIB-In.  Note that this is an explicit definition
      that aligns with the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In concept specified in
      Section 2 of [RFC7854].

   *  Post-policy Adj-RIB-In: As defined in Section 2 of [RFC7854].

   *  Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains
      the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
      local speaker's UPDATE messages."

   *  Pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671].

   *  Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671].

   *  Loc-RIB: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB
      contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP
      speaker's Decision Process."  Note that the Loc-RIB state as
      monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from
      other routing protocols such as an IGP or local static routes.

   *  Route: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271].

   The terms "Producer" and "Collector" are equivalent to "Monitored
   Router" and "Monitoring Station", respectively.  Also,
   "implementation" is used following the same usage in [RFC7854].

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

3.  RIB Monitoring Statistics

   This section defines different statistics type for Adj-RIB-In and
   Adj-RIB-Out monitoring type.  Some of these statistics are also
   applicable to Loc-RIB; refer to Section 4 for more details.

3.1.  Statistics Format

   The BMP Statistics Report Message carries statistic information in
   Type-Length-Value (TLV) formats.  Each Statistic is encoded as a TLV
   (Stat Type, Stat Len, Stat Data) (Section 4.8 of [RFC7854]).  "Stat
   Data" is being referred as "value" when defining various RIB
   Monitoring Statistics.

   Statistics defined in this document can be categorized into two
   granularities: Global Statistics and Per-Address Family Identifier
   (AFI)/Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) [RFC4760]
   Statistics.  Statistics defined with Per-AFI/SAFI descriptions belong
   to Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics, while other statistics belong to Global
   Statistics.  Both a Global Statistic and its corresponding Per-AFI/
   SAFI Statistics can be reported simultaneously.

   The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFIs that a BGP
   speaker supports and negotiates with its peer.  The authoritative
   registries for AFI/SAFI values are maintained by IANA [IANA-AFI]
   [IANA-SAFI].

   For Global Statistics, the "Stat Data" (value) field is a single
   64-bit unsigned integer gauge with "Stat Len" MUST be set to 8.  Each
   global statistic MUST appear only once in a BMP Statistics Report
   Message.

   For Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics, the "Stat Data" (value) field is a
   11-byte structured value formatted as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, and
   64-bit Gauge.  The "Stat Len" MUST be set to 11.  For any given per-
   AFI/SAFI Statistic, duplicate (AFI, SAFI) pairs MUST NOT appear
   within the same BMP Statistics Report Message.  Per-AFI/SAFI
   statistics MUST NOT be included in the BMP Statistics Report Message
   if there is no data to report for that AFI/SAFI.

   If statistics apply to the Loc-RIB, the "Peer Type" field in the Per-
   Peer Header of the corresponding BMP Statistics Report Message MUST
   be set to 3 (Loc-RIB Instance Peer) [RFC9069].  Otherwise, the "Peer
   Type" MUST be set as defined in Section 4.2 of of [RFC7854].

   A BMP implementation MUST ignore unrecognized stat types upon
   receipt.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

3.2.  Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition

   *  Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.  This gauge is similar to stats type 7 defined in
      [RFC7854] and makes it explicitly for the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 19: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.  This gauge is similar to stats type 9
      defined in Section 4.8 of [RFC7854] and makes it explicitly for
      the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.  The value is structured as: 2-byte
      AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 20: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In.  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI,
      1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 22: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by inbound policy.  This gauge is
      different from stats type 0 defined in Section 4.8 of [RFC7854].
      The stats type 0 is a 32-counter which is a monotonically
      increasing number, while the stats type 22 is a 64-bit gauge which
      represents the current number of routes rejected by an inbound
      policy due to ongoing policy configuration changes.  The value is
      structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
      Gauge.

   *  Type = 23: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In accepted by inbound policy.  The value is
      structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
      Gauge.

   *  Type = 26: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by configured route
      damping policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte
      SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.  'Suppressed' refers to a route
      which has been declared suppressed by the BGP Route Flap Damping
      mechanism as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC2439].

   *  Type = 27: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by Graceful
      Restart (GR) events.  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI,
      1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.  'Stale' refers to a
      route which has been declared stale by the BGP GR mechanism as
      described in Section 4.1 of [RFC4724].

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   *  Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by Long-Lived
      Graceful Restart (LLGR).  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI,
      1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.  'Stale' refers to a
      route which has been declared stale by the BGP LLGR mechanism as
      described in Section 4.3 of [RFC9494].

   *  Type = 29: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route threshold as
      defined in Section 6.7 of [RFC4271].

   *  Type = 30: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes per-AFI/SAFI in
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route
      threshold which corresponds to the upper bound of per-AFI/SAFI
      accepted routes following the model defined in Section 6.7 of
      [RFC4271].  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
      followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 31: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized
      route threshold.  If no such license is configured, or if the
      license does not impose a hard limit, this value MUST NOT be
      reported.

   *  Type = 32: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-
      customized route threshold.  If no such license is configured, or
      if the license does not impose a hard limit, this value MUST NOT
      be reported.  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
      followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 33: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In rejected by exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length
      supported by the local configuration.

   *  Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by exceeding the maximum AS_PATH
      length supported by the local configuration.  The value is
      structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
      Gauge.

   *  Type = 35: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In invalidated through the Route Origin
      Authorization (ROA) of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
      [RFC6811].  This is total number of routes invalidated due to
      origin Autonomous System (AS) number mismatch and prefix length
      mismatch.  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
      followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   *  Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In validated by verifying route origin AS
      number through the ROA of RPKI [RFC6811].  The value is structured
      as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 37: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-In whose RPKI route origin validation state is
      NotFound due to the absence of a matching ROA of RPKI [RFC6811].
      The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a
      64-bit Gauge.

3.3.  Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition

   *  Type = 38: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out rejected by outbound policy.  These routes
      are active routes which otherwise would have been advertised in
      absence of outbound policy which rejected them.  The value is
      structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
      Gauge.

   *  Type = 39: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
      configured maximum.

   *  Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding
      the locally configured maximum.  The value is structured as:
      2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-Out invalidated through the ROA of RPKI
      [RFC6811].  This is total number of routes invalidated due to
      origin AS number mismatch and prefix length mismatch.  The value
      is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
      Gauge.

   *  Type = 42: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-Out validated by verifying route origin AS
      number through the ROA of RPKI [RFC6811].  The value is structured
      as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 43: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      post-policy Adj-RIB-Out whose RPKI route origin validation state
      is NotFound due to the absence of a matching ROA of RPKI
      [RFC6811].  The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
      followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

4.  Application Scope of Statistics

   This section briefly lists the statistics defined in this document
   and outlines their scope of application, as shown in Table 1.

    +====+==========+=============+=======+=============+=============+
    |Type|Pre-policy| Post-policy |Loc-RIB| Pre-policy  | Post-policy |
    |    |Adj-RIB-In| Adj-RIB-In  |       | Adj-RIB-Out | Adj-RIB-Out |
    +====+==========+=============+=======+=============+=============+
    | 18 |    Y     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 19 |    Y     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 20 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 21 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 22 |    Y     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 23 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 26 |    N     |      Y      |   Y   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 27 |    N     |      Y      |   Y   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 28 |    N     |      Y      |   Y   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 29 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 30 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 31 |    N     |      Y      |   Y   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 32 |    N     |      Y      |   Y   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 33 |    Y     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 34 |    Y     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 35 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 36 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 37 |    N     |      Y      |   N   |      N      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 38 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      Y      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 39 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      Y      |      N      |

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 40 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      Y      |      N      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 41 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      Y      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 42 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      Y      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 43 |    N     |      N      |   N   |      N      |      Y      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+

                       Table 1: Scope of Application

5.  Implementation Considerations

   This document specifies gauges for new BMP statistics.  The format of
   BMP statistics messages remains unchanged from [RFC7854].  This
   section outlines the implementation considerations for new BMP
   statistics.

   For backward compatibility, and absent policy otherwise, it is
   RECOMMENDED that BMP producers capable of generating both (Types 7
   and 18) or (Types 9 and 19) BMP statistics SHOULD transmit both
   corresponding types simultaneously.  This allows BMP collectors to
   process either format according to their needs without disrupting
   existing implementations that rely on Type 7 or Type 9.  The
   selection of which statistic types to generate within each pair
   SHOULD be treated as an implementation decision rather than a
   protocol requirement, with the BMP collector behavior for handling
   these statistic types remaining implementation-specific.

   Some statistics are dependent on feature configurations, such as GR,
   LLGR, and RPKI, so the corresponding statistics SHOULD only be
   generated and sent when these features are enabled on the BMP
   producer.  These statistics include Types 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
   33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43.

   Some statistics are also relevant for the Loc-RIB view [RFC9069], so
   they may apply to the Loc-RIB view after best-path selection is
   completed.  These statistics include Types 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32.
   When these statistics apply to the Loc-RIB view, the Peer Type in the
   Per-Peer Header of the corresponding BMP Statistics Report Message
   MUST set to 3.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   Certain statistics may have logical relationships (e.g., per-AFI/SAFI
   counts summing to global totals).  BMP statistics producers and
   collectors MAY perform consistency checks but MUST NOT assume strict
   dependencies (due to potential race conditions or partial failures).
   Discrepancies (e.g., sum(per-AFI/SAFI) != global count) SHOULD be
   logged as warnings but MUST NOT disrupt protocol operation.

   The generation and transmission of type 27 and 28 during an active
   GR/LLGR event consumes additional control plane resources (e.g.,
   CPU).  BMP statistics producers SHOULD prioritize the core GR/LLGR
   convergence procedures.  To avoid adversely impacting the restart
   process, a BMP statistics producer MAY choose to sample this value at
   a lower frequency, buffer updates, or temporarily suspend reporting
   for this type during the most critical phases of a switchover.

   These gauges may reset due to manual clearance, or overflow.  BMP
   statistics producers and collectors MUST track discontinuities and
   log this anomaly.

6.  Operational Considerations

   This section outlines some operational considerations of new BMP
   statistics for BMP operators.

   Transmission scheduling and triggering mechanisms for new gauges are
   implementation-dependent.  BMP operators SHOULD determine appropriate
   report generation and delivery strategies, including configurable
   timing intervals and threshold values.  The mechanism for controlling
   the reporting of new gauges SHOULD be consistent with that of
   existing types.

   BMP operators SHOULD rate-limit statistic updates to minimize
   performance impact on control-plane processes.  BMP operators SHOULD
   only enable necessary statistics to reduce memory and CPU overhead.
   Implementations SHOULD also support per-router configuration of
   statistic subsets for collection and reporting.

   Some BMP statistics producers, or configurations in BMP statistics
   producers, MAY discard routes that do not match policy and thus the
   accepted count (Type 23) and the Adj-RIB-In counts (Type 21) will be
   identical in such cases.  BMP operators SHOULD be aware of this
   behavior when interpreting these gauges.  BMP operators SHOULD be
   aware that BMP statistics producers and collectors MAY log
   inconsistencies between statistics as warnings.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

7.  Security Considerations

   Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
   affect the BMP security model.  All security and authentication
   mechanisms required by Section 11 of [RFC7854], Section 8 of
   [RFC8671], and Section 7 of [RFC9069] are also applicable to the
   gauges defined in this document.  This document does not add any
   additional security considerations.

   Monitored devices SHOULD be configured to implement rate-limited
   reporting of new gauges.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the following new parameters in the BMP Statistics
   Types registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
   parameters.xhtml#statistics-types), part of the BMP parameters
   registry group (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
   parameters.xhtml).

   This document requests IANA to update these entries as follows.
   Also, the document requests IANA to update the reference cited for
   the entries with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.

   *  Type = 18: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 19: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 20: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 21: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.

   *  Type = 22: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In rejected by inbound policy.

   *  Type = 23: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In accepted by inbound policy.

   *  Type = 26: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by configured route damping
      policy.

   *  Type = 27: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by GR events.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   *  Type = 28: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by LLGR.

   *  Type = 29: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In
      left before exceeding the received route threshold.

   *  Type = 30: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route threshold.

   *  Type = 31: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In or
      Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized route
      threshold.

   *  Type = 32: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized
      route threshold.

   *  Type = 33: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In
      rejected due to exceeding the locally configured maximum AS_PATH
      length.

   *  Type = 34: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In rejected due to exceeding the locally configured
      maximum AS_PATH length.

   *  Type = 35: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying route origin AS number
      through the ROA of RPKI.

   *  Type = 36: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In validated after verifying route origin AS number
      through the ROA of RPKI.

   *  Type = 37: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In whose RPKI route origin validation state is NotFound.

   *  Type = 38: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out rejected by outbound policy.

   *  Type = 39: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out
      filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured
      maximum.

   *  Type = 40: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
      configured maximum.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   *  Type = 41: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after verifying route origin AS number
      through the ROA of RPKI.

   *  Type = 42: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out validated after verifying route origin AS number
      through the ROA of RPKI.

   *  Type = 43: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out whose RPKI route origin validation state is NotFound.

9.  Implementation Status

   Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
   well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

9.1.  Juniper Networks

   *  Organization: Juniper Networks.

   *  Implementation:

   *  Description: Below RIB-IN statistics are implemented.

      -  Type = 18.

      -  Type = 19.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

      -  Type = 20.

      -  Type = 21.

      -  Type = 22.

      -  Type = 23.

      -  Type = 26.

      -  Type = 27.

      -  Type = 28.

      -  Type = 35.

      -  Type = 36.

      -  Type = 37.

   *  Maturity Level: Demo

   *  Coverage:

   *  Version: Draft-05

   *  Licensing: N/A

   *  Implementation experience: Nothing specific.

   *  Contact: msri@juniper.net

   *  Last updated: January 20, 2025

9.2.  New H3C Technologies

   *  Organization: New H3C Technologies.

   *  Implementation: H3C CR16000, CR19000 series routers implementation
      of New BMP Statistics Type.

   *  Description: Below New types have been implemented in above-
      mentioned New H3C Products (running Version 7.1.086 and above).

      -  Type = 18.

      -  Type = 19.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

      -  Type = 20.

      -  Type = 21.

      -  Type = 22.

      -  Type = 23.

      -  Type = 29.

      -  Type = 30.

      -  Type = 31.

      -  Type = 32.

      -  Type = 33.

      -  Type = 34.

      -  Type = 35.

      -  Type = 36.

      -  Type = 37.

      -  Type = 38.

      -  Type = 39.

      -  Type = 40.

   *  Maturity Level: Demo

   *  Coverage:

   *  Version: Draft-05

   *  Licensing: N/A

   *  Implementation experience: Nothing specific.

   *  Contact: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com

   *  Last updated: January 20, 2025

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

10.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Jeff Haas, Mohamed Boucadair, Thomas
   Graf, and Prasad S.  Narasimha for their valuable input.

   Thanks to Giuseppe Fioccola for the OPSDIR, Jouni Korhonen for the
   GENART, and Bruno Decraene for the RTGDIR review.

   Thanks to Gunter van de Velde, Eric Vyncke, and Ketan Talaulikar for
   the IESG review.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2439]  Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route
              Flap Damping", RFC 2439, DOI 10.17487/RFC2439, November
              1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2439>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4724]  Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
              Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

   [RFC6811]  Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
              Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6811>.

   [RFC7854]  Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
              Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8671]  Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S.
              Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring
              Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.

   [RFC9069]  Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
              "Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
              (BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.

   [RFC9494]  Uttaro, J., Chen, E., Decraene, B., and J. Scudder, "Long-
              Lived Graceful Restart for BGP", RFC 9494,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9494, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9494>.

   [IANA-AFI] IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.

   [IANA-SAFI]
              IANA, "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)
              Parameters",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mukul Srivastava (editor)
   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
   10 Technology Park Dr
   Westford, MA 01886
   United States of America
   Email: mukul.srivastava@hpe.com

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              December 2025

   Yisong Liu
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing
   Xicheng District, 100053
   China
   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com

   Changwang Lin (editor)
   New H3C Technologies
   8 Yongjia North Road
   Beijing
   Haidian District, 100094
   China
   Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com

   Jinming Li
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing
   Xicheng District, 100053
   China
   Email: lijinming@chinamobile.com

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 6 June 2026                 [Page 18]