BGP RIB Fine-Grained Filtering Statistics Extensions for BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-ext-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Lili Wang , Nan Geng , Lei Li , Shunwan Zhuang | ||
| Last updated | 2026-07-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-ext-01
Network Working Group L. Wang
Internet-Draft N. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track L. Li
Expires: 6 January 2027 S. Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
5 July 2026
BGP RIB Fine-Grained Filtering Statistics Extensions for BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)
draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-ext-01
Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines mechanisms to monitor BGP
running status and routing information bases (RIBs). [RFC9972]
extended BMP statistics reporting by introducing advanced BGP RIB
stat types. However, with the rapid deployment of path-level
cryptographic security protocols (such as ASPA) and the complex
interactions between control plane and hardware forwarding resources,
network operators require granular, behavior-driven observability
into why routes are discarded, invalidated, or restricted at both the
ingress and egress boundaries. This document updates the registry
established by [RFC7854] and extended by [RFC9972] by defining some
fine-grained BGP RIB monitoring statistics types covering hardware
resource exhaustion, next-hop resolution anomalies, structured route
leaks ([RFC7908]), and ingress/egress ASPA verification states.
Furthermore, it introduces a 4-bit control flag space within the Stat
Type TLV to enable dynamic differential rate monitoring and proactive
asynchronous trigger-driven telemetry.
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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
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 January 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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
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
2. BMP Statistics Type TLV Format Enhancement . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BGP RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions . . . . 4
3.2. Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions . . . . 6
4. Operational and Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] provides an operational
interface to monitor BGP peer sessions and receive fine-grained
updates. [RFC9972] enhanced BMP's diagnostic capabilities by
defining advanced BGP RIB statistics, allowing routers to report
global numbers of routes within multiple execution phases.
As global infrastructure transitions toward automated operations and
cryptographic path validation—including Autonomous System Provider
Authorization (ASPA)—coarse-grained statistics are no longer
sufficient. When routing updates are dropped or become inactive,
collectors must immediately differentiate between software policy
rejects, underlying hardware forwarding path resource exhaustion
(such as FIB or SID space limits), next-hop tunnel resolution
failures, or specific types of route leaks.
The initial version of this work [draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-
ext-00] specified 21 detailed fine-grained statistics types. This
document maintains all 21 original statistics definitions to protect
operational telemetry granularity, while updating the Stat Type TLV
structure to incorporate behavioral flags. These flags enable native
support for trigger-based telemetry and differential rate statistics.
2. BMP Statistics Type TLV Format Enhancement
To support real-time rate monitoring and event-driven asynchronous
telemetry, the Value region of the Statistics Report (SR) Message
Stat Type TLV defined in Section 4.11 of [RFC7854] is enhanced and
structured as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stat Type | Stat Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | AFI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SAFI | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Gauge Value (64-bit, Upper 32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Gauge Value (64-bit, Lower 32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* Stat Type: 2 bytes. Identifies the specific fine-grained counter.
* Stat Len: 2 bytes. Indicates the length of the value field.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
* Flags: 4 bits. Defined as follows:
* - Bit 0 (T-bit - Triggered Bit): If set to 1, indicates that the
report is actively triggered by an anomalous boundary breach or
threshold cross-over event rather than a regular periodic
timer.
- Bit 1 (D-bit - Differential Bit): If set to 1, indicates that
the Gauge Value represents the first-order differential value
(Delta rate of change, routes per second) over a sliding
sampling window. If set to 0, it contains the standard
absolute counter.
- Bit 2-3: Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0.
* Reserved: 12 bits. MUST be set to 0. o AFI: 2 bytes. Address
Family Identifier.
* SAFI: 1 byte. Subsequent Address Family Identifier.
* Gauge Value: 64 bits. Unsigned value representing the absolute
count or differential velocity of the targeted routing state.
3. BGP RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions
3.1. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions
The following fine-grained statistics types are defined for the
ingress routing stage (Adj-RIB-In):
* Type = TBD1: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to exceeding the received route threshold.
* Type = TBD2: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to insufficient memory.
* Type = TBD3: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In that cannot be downloaded to the FIB module due to
insufficient forwarding resources.
* Type = TBD4: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In that cannot be downloaded to the FIB module due to
insufficient label resources or SID resources.
* Type = TBD5: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to invalid next-hop.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
* Type = TBD6: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to next-hop unreachable.
* Type = TBD7: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In that are inactive due to the inability to resolve the
next-hop tunnel.
* Type = TBD8: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 1 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Hairpin Turn with Full Prefix.
* Type = TBD9: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 2 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Lateral ISP-ISP-ISP Leak.
* Type = TBD10: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 3 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Leak of Transit-Provider Prefixes to Peer.
* Type = TBD11: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 4 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Leak of Peer Prefixes to Transit Provider.
* Type = TBD12: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 5 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Prefix Re-origination with Data Path to Legitimate
Origin.
* Type = TBD13: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due to Type 6 Route Leak as defined in
[RFC7908]: Accidental Leak of Internal Prefixes and More-Specific
Prefixes.
* Type = TBD14: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In invalidated through the AS_PATH
Verification [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]. This is total
number of routes invalidated due to AS_PATH Verification.
* Type = TBD15: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In validated through the AS_PATH
Verification [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]. This is total
number of routes validated due to AS_PATH Verification.
* Type = TBD16: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In whose AS_PATH Verification state is
Unknown due to the AS_PATH Verification
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification].
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
3.2. Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definitions
The following fine-grained statistics types are defined for the
egress routing stage (Adj-RIB-Out):
* Type = TBD17: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-Out rejected due to exceeding the sent route
threshold.
* Type = TBD18: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-
policy Adj-RIB-Out that cannot be advertised to its peer due to
insufficient label resources or SID resources.
* Type = TBD19: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out invalidated through the AS_PATH
Verification [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
[I-D.zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress]. This is total number of routes
invalidated due to AS_PATH Verification.
* Type = TBD20: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out validated through the AS_PATH
Verification [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
[I-D.zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress]. This is total number of routes
validated due to AS_PATH Verification.
* Type = TBD21: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/
SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out whose AS_PATH Verification state is
Unknown due to the AS_PATH Verification
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
[I-D.zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress].
4. Operational and Performance Considerations
The granular counters defined in this specification map directly into
the low-level pipeline execution stages of the BGP policy engine and
the forwarding infrastructure (FIB/Label managers). These metrics
MUST be implemented as atomic O(1) mathematical increments to
guarantee zero line-rate performance penalty under high-scale BGP
churn.
By deploying the newly structured T-bit and D-bit control flags, the
operational cost of centralized network monitoring centers can be
dramatically minimized. In nominal configurations, periodic BMP SR
messages consume a flat, low volume of network bandwidth.
However, if a sudden resource exhaustion event occurs (e.g., FIB
table space exhaustion matched by Type TBD3) or a high-velocity Route
Leak anomaly happens (e.g., Type TBD10 spikes due to a transit leak),
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
the monitored router can bypass the standard timer queue. It sets
the T-bit to 1 and the D-bit to 1 to immediately inject an
asynchronous, differential rate-of-change telemetry burst into the
BMP channel. This allows telemetry collectors and automated
controllers to respond within milliseconds to mitigate wide-scale
network anomalies.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml).
+----------+-------------------------------------------+----------+
| Stat Type| Description | Reference|
+----------+-------------------------------------------+----------+
| TBD1 | Adj-RIB-In Rx Limit Exceeded Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD2 | Adj-RIB-In Insufficient Memory Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD3 | Adj-RIB-In Ingress FIB Resource Exhausted | This doc |
| TBD4 | Adj-RIB-In Ingress Label/SID Exhausted | This doc |
| TBD5 | Adj-RIB-In Invalid Next-Hop Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD6 | Adj-RIB-In Next-Hop Unreachable Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD7 | Adj-RIB-In Next-Hop Tunnel Unresolved | This doc |
| TBD8 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 1 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD9 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 2 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD10 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 3 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD11 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 4 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD12 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 5 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD13 | Adj-RIB-In RFC7908 Type 6 Route Leak Drop | This doc |
| TBD14 | Adj-RIB-In Inbound ASPA Invalid Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD15 | Adj-RIB-In Inbound ASPA Valid Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD16 | Adj-RIB-In Inbound ASPA Unknown Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD17 | Adj-RIB-Out Tx Limit Exceeded Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD18 | Adj-RIB-Out Egress Label/SID Exhausted | This doc |
| TBD19 | Adj-RIB-Out Outbound ASPA Invalid Prefixes| This doc |
| TBD20 | Adj-RIB-Out Outbound ASPA Valid Prefixes | This doc |
| TBD21 | Adj-RIB-Out Outbound ASPA Unknown Prefixes| This doc |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+----------+
6. Security Considerations
The enhancements detailed in this document do not modify the
fundamental transport security architecture of the BGP Monitoring
Protocol. However, exporting highly granular telemetry regarding
hardware forwarding table space (FIB/Labels), specific Route Leak
classifications, and detailed ASPA states provides clear insight into
a network boundary's operational limits and security policy profile.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
If malicious actors capture this stream, they could exploit known
resource limitations or policy gaps to launch targeted Denial of
Service (DoS) attacks or targeted routing exploits. Therefore,
sessions handling these advanced telemetry extensions MUST leverage
robust crypto encapsulation and authorization mechanisms, such as TLS
or IPsec, as mandated in [RFC7854].
7. Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document:
To be added.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the review and inputs from xxx.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7908] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., McPherson, D., Osterweil, E.,
and B. Dickson, "Problem Definition and Classification of
BGP Route Leaks", RFC 7908, DOI 10.17487/RFC7908, June
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7908>.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
[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>.
[RFC9972] Srivastava, M., Ed., Liu, Y., Lin, C., Ed., and J. Li,
"Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types",
RFC 9972, DOI 10.17487/RFC9972, May 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9972>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., Snijders,
J., and K. Sriram, "BGP AS_PATH Verification Based on
Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) Objects",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-
verification-25, 19 April 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
aspa-verification-25>.
[I-D.zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress]
Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Matějka, M., Xu, M., Sriram, K., and
N. Geng, "ASPA-based AS_PATH Verification for BGP Export",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zhang-sidrops-
aspa-egress-04, 20 January 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zhang-
sidrops-aspa-egress-04>.
Authors' Addresses
Lili Wang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: lily.wong@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext July 2026
Nan Geng
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: gengnan@huawei.com
Lei Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: kenny.lilei@huawei.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires 6 January 2027 [Page 10]