GROW
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Srivastava, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9972 Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: 6 June 2026
ISSN: 2070-1721 China Mobile
C. Lin, Ed.
New H3C Technologies
J. Li
China Mobile
3 December 2025
May 2026
Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17
Abstract
RFC 7854 defines different
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) described in RFC 7854 defines
statistics message types to observe events that occur on a monitored
router. This document defines new statistics type types 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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9972.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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)
(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
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.
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements
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 Statistics 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 more-refined BGP route
monitoring and analysis, improving analysis to improve 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 the 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 BCP14 is
| Note that the key words are used to stress importance for
operators but
| operations; they are not required as a formal implementation
| requirement.
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
*
Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The [RFC4271]:
| The Adj-RIBs-In contains unprocessed routing information that
| has been advertised to the local BGP speaker by its peers."
* 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 [RFC4271]:
| The Adj-RIBs-Out contains the routes for advertisement to
| specific peers by means of the local speaker's UPDATE messages."
* 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 [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" "producer" and "Collector" "collector" are equivalent to "Monitored
Router" "monitored
router" and "Monitoring Station", "monitoring station", respectively. Also,
"implementation" is used following follows the same usage as in [RFC7854].
3. RIB Monitoring Statistics
This section defines different statistics type types for Adj-RIB-In and
Adj-RIB-Out monitoring type. types. 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 (see Section 4.8 of [RFC7854]).
"Stat Data" is being referred to 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
(AFI) / Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) [RFC4760]
Statistics. Statistics (see
[RFC4760]). 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 (see [IANA-AFI]
[IANA-SAFI].
and [IANA-SAFI]).
For Global Statistics, the "Stat Data" (value) field is a single
64-bit unsigned integer gauge with where the "Stat Len" field 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 a
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" field MUST be set as defined in Section 4.2 of of [RFC7854].
A BMP implementation MUST ignore unrecognized stat types upon
receipt.
3.2. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
*
Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge)
Current number of routes in the 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 the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-In. 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. 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 the post-policy Adj-RIB-In.
*
Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge)
Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In. 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 the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-In
rejected by an inbound policy. This gauge is different from stats
type 0 defined in Section 4.8 of [RFC7854].
The stats Stats type 0 is a
32-counter which that is a monotonically increasing number, while number; the stats
type 22 is a 64-bit gauge which that 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-
In accepted by an 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-
In or Loc-RIB suppressed by a configured route
damping 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 that 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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 that 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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 that 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 the post-policy Adj-RIB-In left before
exceeding the received route received-route threshold as defined in Section 6.7
of [RFC4271].
*
Type = 30: (64-bit Gauge)
Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI in post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-
RIB-In left before exceeding the received route received-route threshold which that
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 the 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-
In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-
customized 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 the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by due
to exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length supported by the local
configuration.
*
Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge)
Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-
RIB-In rejected by due to 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-
In invalidated through the Route Origin Authorization (ROA) of
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6811]. This is the
total number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin
Autonomous System (AS) number mismatch numbers and a mismatch of prefix length
mismatch. length.
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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-
In validated by verifying the 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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 the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out Adj-RIB-
Out rejected by an outbound policy. These routes are active
routes which that otherwise would have been advertised in the absence of
an outbound policy which that 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 the pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out filtered
due to the AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured
maximum.
*
Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge)
Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out Adj-RIB-
Out invalidated through the ROA of RPKI [RFC6811]. This is the
total number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin AS number mismatch
numbers and a mismatch of prefix length mismatch. lengths.
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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out Adj-RIB-
Out validated by verifying the 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out 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.
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. application.
+====+==========+=============+=======+=============+=============+
|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 |
+----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
| 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 and (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. implementation specific.
Some statistics are dependent on feature configurations, such as GR,
LLGR, and RPKI, so RPKI; therefore, the corresponding statistics SHOULD only
be generated and sent when these features are enabled on the BMP
producer. These statistics include Types the following 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 [RFC9069];
therefore, 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
"Peer Type" field 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). 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, 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.
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 statistics updates to minimize
performance impact on control-plane 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 policy; 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.
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 "BMP Statistics
Types registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml#statistics-types),
Types" registry, part of the BMP parameters "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
Parameters" registry group (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml).
This document requests <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-
parameters/>.
IANA to update has listed these entries as follows.
Also, the This document requests IANA to update the serves as a
reference cited for
the entries with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.
* each entry.
Type = 18: Number of routes currently in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.
*
Type = 19: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In.
*
Type = 20: Number of routes currently in the post-policy Adj-RIB-In.
*
Type = 21: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In.
*
Type = 22: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-In rejected by an inbound policy.
*
Type = 23: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In accepted by an inbound policy.
*
Type = 26: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by a configured route route-
damping policy.
*
Type = 27: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by GR events.
*
Type = 28: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by LLGR.
*
Type = 29: Number of routes currently in the post-policy Adj-RIB-In
left before exceeding the received route received-route threshold.
*
Type = 30: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route received-route
threshold.
*
Type = 31: Number of routes currently in the post-policy Adj-RIB-In
or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized route
threshold.
*
Type = 32: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized license-
customized route threshold.
*
Type = 33: Number of routes currently in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In
rejected due to exceeding the locally configured maximum AS_PATH
length.
*
Type = 34: Number of routes currently in the 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying the route origin AS
number through the ROA of RPKI.
*
Type = 36: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In validated after verifying the route origin AS
number through the ROA of RPKI.
*
Type = 37: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-In whose RPKI route origin validation state is
NotFound.
*
Type = 38: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-Out rejected by an outbound policy.
*
Type = 39: Number of routes currently in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out
filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured
maximum.
*
Type = 40: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
configured maximum.
*
Type = 41: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after verifying the route origin AS
number through the ROA of RPKI.
*
Type = 42: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy post-
policy Adj-RIB-Out validated after verifying the route origin AS
number through the ROA of RPKI.
*
Type = 43: Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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>.
[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>.
[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:
Acknowledgements
The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. authors 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, Éric Vyncke, and Ketan Talaulikar for
the IESG review.
Authors' Addresses
Mukul Srivastava (editor)
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 (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