Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-15

GROW                                                       M. Srivastava
Internet-Draft                                Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Liu
Expires: 23 May 2026                                        China Mobile
                                                                  C. Lin
                                                    New H3C Technologies
                                                                   J. Li
                                                            China Mobile
                                                        19 November 2025

        Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
                  draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-15

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 23 May 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 23 May 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 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.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Operational Considerations to Produce Gauges for BMP
           Statistics Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Operational Considerations for Operators Using Gauges for
           BMP Statistics Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Juniper Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  New H3C Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   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 23 May 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 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.

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.

   *  Primary route: A BGP route to a prefix that is considered the best
      route by the BGP decision process [RFC4271].  A prefix can have
      more than one primary route.

   *  Backup route: A backup route is eligible for route selection, but
      it is not selected as the primary route and is also installed in
      the Loc-RIB.  Backup routes are used for fast convergence in the
      event of failures.

   Also, "implementation" is used following the same usage in [RFC7854].

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 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 AFI/SAFI are used to identify network layer protocols and
   associated routing information.  The authoritative registries for
   AFI/SAFI values are maintained by IANA [IANA-AFI] [IANA-SAFI].  The
   Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFIs that a BGP
   speaker supports and negotiates with its peer.

   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.

   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
   and MUST exclude unsupported stat types upon transmission.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 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
      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
      accepted by inbound policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte
      AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 24: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      selected as primary route.  The value is structured as: 2-byte
      AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   *  Type = 25: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      selected as a backup route.  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
      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 path which has been declared
      suppressed by the BGP Route Flap Damping mechanism as described in
      Section 2.2 of [RFC2439].

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   *  Type = 27: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      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 path which has been declared stale by
      the BGP GR mechanism as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC4724].

   *  Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      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 path 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 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
      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 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
      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 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
      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

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

      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.

   *  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
      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 filtered due to
      AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured maximum.

   *  Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
      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 23 May 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 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  |Adj-RIB-In|Adj-RIB-Out|Loc-RIB|
                  +-------+----------+-----------+-------+
                  |  18   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  19   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  20   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  21   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  22   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  23   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  24   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  25   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  26   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  27   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  28   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  29   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  30   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  31   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  32   |     Y    |     N     |   Y   |
                  |  33   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  34   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  35   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  36   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  37   |     Y    |     N     |   N   |
                  |  38   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  |  39   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  |  40   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  |  41   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  |  42   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  |  43   |     N    |     Y     |   N   |
                  +-------+----------+-----------+-------+

                      Table 1: Scope of Application

5.  Operational Considerations

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

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

5.1.  Operational Considerations to Produce Gauges for BMP Statistics
      Messages

   This section outlines the considerations to produce gauges for BMP
   Statistics Report Messages.

   Transmission scheduling and triggering mechanisms for new gauges are
   implementation-dependent.  Implementations 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.

   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 router.
   This statistics include Type 24, 25, 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.  This statistics include Type 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, and
   32.  When this 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.

   Certain statistics may have logical relationships (e.g., per-AFI/SAFI
   counts summing to global totals).  Implementations 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.

   For backward compatibility, and absent policy otherwise, it is
   RECOMMENDED that monitored routers capable of generating both (Type 7
   and Type 18) or (Type 9 and Type 19) BMP statistics should transmit
   both corresponding types simultaneously.  This allows monitoring
   stations 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 type(s) to generate within each pair
   should be treated as an implementation decision rather than a
   protocol requirement, with the monitoring station behavior for
   handling these statistic types remaining implementation-specific.

   These gauges may reset due to session restart, manual clearance, or
   overflow.  Implementations MUST track discontinuities and log this
   information.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

5.2.  Operational Considerations for Operators Using Gauges for BMP
      Statistics Message

   This section outlines the considerations for the network operators
   who configure and use BMP statistics.

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

   The generation and transmission of type 27 and 28 during an active
   GR/LLGR event consumes additional control plane resources (e.g.,
   CPU).  Implementations should prioritize the core GR/LLGR convergence
   procedures.  To avoid adversely impacting the restart process, an
   implementation 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.

   Some implementations, or configurations in implementations, 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.

6.  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.

7.  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.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   *  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 rejected by
      inbound policy.

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

   *  Type = 24: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI selected as
      primary route.

   *  Type = 25: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI selected as
      a backup route.

   *  Type = 26: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI suppressed
      by configured route damping policy.

   *  Type = 27: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI marked as
      stale by GR events.

   *  Type = 28: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI marked as
      stale by LLGR.

   *  Type = 29: Number of routes currently left before exceeding the
      received route threshold.

   *  Type = 30: Number of routes currently per-AFI/SAFI left before
      exceeding the received route threshold.

   *  Type = 31: Number of routes currently left before exceeding a
      license-customized route threshold.

   *  Type = 32: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI left before
      exceeding a license-customized route threshold.

   *  Type = 33: Number of routes currently rejected due to exceeding
      the maximum AS_PATH length.

   *  Type = 34: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI rejected due
      to exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   *  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 rejected by
      outbound policy.

   *  Type = 39: Number of routes currently filtered due to AS_PATH
      length exceeding the locally configured maximum

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

   *  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.

8.  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.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   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".

8.1.  Juniper Networks

   *  Organization: Juniper Networks.

   *  Implementation:

   *  Description: Below RIB-IN statistics are implemented.

      -  Type = 18.

      -  Type = 19.

      -  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.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   *  Contact: msri@juniper.net

   *  Last updated: January 20, 2025

8.2.  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.

      -  Type = 20.

      -  Type = 21.

      -  Type = 22.

      -  Type = 23.

      -  Type = 24.

      -  Type = 25.

      -  Type = 29.

      -  Type = 30.

      -  Type = 31.

      -  Type = 32.

      -  Type = 33.

      -  Type = 34.

      -  Type = 35.

      -  Type = 36.

      -  Type = 37.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

      -  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

9.  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.

10.  References

10.1.  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>.

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   [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>.

   [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>.

10.2.  Informative References

Srivastava, et al.         Expires 23 May 2026                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft             BMP New Statistics              November 2025

   [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
   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
   10 Technology Park Dr
   Westford, MA 01886
   United States of America
   Email: mukul.srivastava@hpe.com

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

   Changwang Lin
   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 23 May 2026                 [Page 17]