GROW M. Srivastava
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: 25 August 2025 China Mobile
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
J. Li
China Mobile
21 February 2025
Definition For New BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-07
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 25 August 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
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Adj-RIB-In Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Adj-RIB-Out Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Juniper Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. New H3C Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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.
This document defines new gauges for BMP statistics message. The
format of the BMP statistics message remains same as defined in
[RFC7854].
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 terminology in this document aligns with [RFC7854] and [RFC8671].
2. Statistics Definition
This section defines different statistics type for Adj-RIB-In and
Adj-RIB-Out monitoring type.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
2.1. Adj-RIB-In Statistics Definition
* Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in Adj-RIBs-In
Pre-Policy [RFC7854]. Note that this gauge updates stats type 7
defined in [RFC7854] and makes it an explicit for Adj-RIBs-In Pre-
Policy .
* Type = 19: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-Address
Family Identifier (AFI)/Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI) Adj-RIBs-In Pre-Policy. Note that this gauge is similar
from stats type 9 defined in [RFC7854] and makes it a explicit for
Adj-RIBs-In Pre-Policy. 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 Adj-RIBs-In
Post-Policy [RFC7854].
* Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy. 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. Note that this gauge is different
from stats type 0 defined in [RFC7854]. The stats type 0 in
[RFC7854] is a 32-counter which is monotonically increasing number
and doesn't represent the current number of routes rejected by an
inbound policy due to ongoing configuration changes. The value is
structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-bit
Gauge.
* Type = 23: (64-bit Gauge) 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. Some
implementations, or configurations in implementations, may discard
routes that do not match policy and thus the accepted count and
the Adj-RIB-In counts will be identical in such cases.
* Type = 24: (64-bit Gauge) 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. A primary route is
a recursive or non-recursive path whose next-hop resolution ends
with an adjacency [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic]. A prefix can have
more than one primary path if multipath is configured. A best
path is also considered as a primary path.
* Type = 25: (64-bit Gauge) 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. A backup path is
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
also installed in the Loc-RIB, but it is not used until some or
all primary paths become unreachable. Backup paths are used for
fast convergence in the event of failures.
* Type = 26: (64-bit Gauge) 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].
* Type = 27: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI marked
as stale by any configuration. 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 Graceful Restart
mechanism as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC4724], such as the
routes filtered by a remote peer through application of policies
during a graceful restart.
* Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) 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) Number of routes left until reaching the
received route threshold as defined in Section 6.7 of [RFC4271].
* Type = 30: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI left
until reaching the received route threshold as 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) Number of routes left until reaching a
license-customized route threshold. This value is affected by
whether a customized license exists for the relevant address
family, and when the customized license is installed.
If the license-customized route threshold is vendor specific, this
type value (31) SHOULD use enterprise-specific TLV encoding as
described in Section 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit].
* Type = 32: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI left
until reaching a license-customized route threshold. This value
is affected by whether a customized license exists for the
relevant address family, and when the customized license is
installed. The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI,
followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
Also if the license-customized route threshold is vendor specific,
this type value (32) SHOULD also use enterprise-specific TLV
encoding as described in Section 3.3 of
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit].
* Type = 33: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes rejected by
exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
* Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
rejected by exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH. 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
Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy 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.
* Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy 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
Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy not found 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.
2.2. Adj-RIB-Out 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
should 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. This counter only
considers routes distributed from Loc-RIB into the Adj-RIBs-Out
and does not include cases like BGP add-paths [RFC7911].
* Type = 39: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes refused to be
sent by exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
* Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
refused to be sent by exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a
64-bit Gauge.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
* Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy 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
Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy 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
Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy not found 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.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned the following new parameters in the BMP Statistics
Types registry, part of the BMP parameters registry group
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml).
This document requests IANA to update the reference cited for the
entries with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.
* Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in Adj-RIBs-
In Pre-Policy.
* Type = 19: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Pre-Policy.
* Type = 20: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in Adj-RIBs-
In Post-Policy.
* Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy.
* Type = 22: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI rejected by inbound policy.
* Type = 23: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI accepted by inbound policy.
* Type = 24: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI selected as primary route.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
* Type = 25: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI selected as a backup route.
* Type = 26: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
suppressed by configured route damping policy.
* Type = 27: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI marked
as stale by any configuration.
* Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI marked
as stale by LLGR.
* Type = 29: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes left until reaching the
received route threshold.
* Type = 30: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI left
until reaching the received route threshold.
* Type = 31: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes left until reaching a
license-customized route threshold.
* Type = 32: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI left
until reaching a license-customized route threshold.
* Type = 33: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently rejected due
to exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
* Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI rejected due to exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
* Type = 35: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy invalidated after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
* Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy validated after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
* Type = 37: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy not found after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
* Type = 38: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI rejected by outbound policy.
* Type = 39: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently refused by
exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
* Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI refused by exceeding the length threshold of AS-PATH.
* Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy invalidated after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
* Type = 42: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy validated after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
* Type = 43: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes currently in per-AFI/
SAFI Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy not found after verifying route
origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI.
4. Security Considerations
The considerations in Section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this document.
It is also believed that this document does not add any additional
security considerations.
5. 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".
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
5.1. 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.
* Contact: msri@juniper.net
* Last updated: January 20, 2025
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
5.2. 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.
- Type = 38.
- Type = 39.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
- 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
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jeff Haas and Mohamed Boucadair for
their valuable input.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "Support for Enterprise-specific
TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-06, 17
January 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-06>.
[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 25 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 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>.
[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>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
[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>.
[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>.
7.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix
Independent Convergence", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-21, 7 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
bgp-pic-21>.
[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>.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 25 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025
Authors' Addresses
Mukul Srivastava
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Dr
Westford, MA 01886
United States of America
Email: msri@juniper.net
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 25 August 2025 [Page 13]