BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types Extension
draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-ext-00
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 | 2025-12-31 | ||
| 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-00
Network Working Group L. Wang
Internet-Draft N. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track L. Li
Expires: 4 July 2026 S. Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
31 December 2025
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types Extension
draft-wang-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-ext-00
Abstract
[RFC7854], [RFC8671] and [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats] define
different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) statistics message types to
observe events that occur on a monitored router. This document
defines some additional statistics type to monitor BMP Adj-RIB-In,
Loc-RIB and Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information Bases (RIBs).
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.
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 4 July 2026.
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
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
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. RIB Monitoring Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition . . . . . 3
2.2. Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
.
Section 4.8 of [RFC7854] and section 6.2 of [RFC8671] define a number
of different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) statistics types to
observe major events that occur on a monitored router, and
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats] defines some new statistics type to
monitor BMP Adj-RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information Bases
(RIBs). This document defines some additional statistics type to
monitor BMP Adj-RIB-In, Loc-RIB and Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information
Bases (RIBs).
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
2. 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, The Statistics Format follows the definition
in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats].
2.1. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
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.
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.
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
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. The value is structured as:
2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
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. The value is structured as:
2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
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].
The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a
64-bit Gauge.
2.2. Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
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. The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
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.
The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a
64-bit Gauge.
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]. The value is structured as: 2-byte
AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
3. 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).
They will be added in subsequent versions.
4. 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.
5. Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document:
To be added.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the review and inputs from xxx.
7. References
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats]
Srivastava, M., Liu, Y., Lin, C., and J. Li, "Advanced BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-
stats-17, 3 December 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-
bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17>.
[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-24, 19 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
aspa-verification-24>.
[I-D.zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress]
Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Matějka, M., and M. Xu, "ASPA-based
AS_PATH Verification for BGP Export", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress-03, 21
July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
zhang-sidrops-aspa-egress-03>.
[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>.
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
[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>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Lili Wang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: lily.wong@huawei.com
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
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP Stats Ext December 2025
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires 4 July 2026 [Page 8]