GROW M. Srivastava Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Liu Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile Expires: 22 August 2025 C. Lin New H3C Technologies J. Li China Mobile 18 February 2025 Definition For New BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-06 Abstract RFC 7854 defines different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) statistics message types to observe events that occur on a monitored router. This document updates RFC 7854 by adding 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 22 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 Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Adj-RIB-In Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Adj-RIB-Out Statistics Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Juniper Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 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]. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 2. Statistics Definition This section defines different statistics type for Adj-RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out monitoring type. 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * 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 [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations]. 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 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * 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. 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * Type = TBD1: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/ SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy invalidated due to origin AS mismatch 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 = TBD2: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/ SAFI Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy invalidated due to prefix length mismatch 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. * 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * Type = TBD3: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/ SAFI Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy invalidated due to origin AS mismatch 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 = TBD4: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-AFI/ SAFI Adj-RIBs-Out Post-Policy invalidated due to prefix length mismatch 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. * 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * 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. * 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. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * 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. This document also requests that IANA assign the following additional parameters to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- parameters.xhtml). * Type = TBD1: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj- RIBs-In Post-Policy invalidated due to origin AS mismatch by verifying route origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI. * Type = TBD2: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj- RIBs-In Post-Policy invalidated due to prefix length mismatch by verifying route origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI. * Type = TBD3: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj- RIBs-Out Post-Policy invalidated due to origin AS mismatch by verifying route origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI. * Type = TBD4: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj- RIBs-Out Post-Policy invalidated due to prefix length mismatch by 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 Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 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". 5.1. Juniper Networks * Organization: Juniper Networks. * Implementation: * Description: Most of the RIB-IN statistics are implemented. * Maturity Level: Product * Coverage: * Version: Draft-05 * Licensing: N/A * Implementation experience: Nothing specific. * Contact: msri@juniper.net * Last updated: January 20, 2025 5.2. New H3C Technologies * Organization: New H3C Technologies. * Implementation: H3C CR16000, CR19000 series routers implementation of New BMP Statistics Type. * Description: Almost all New types have been implemented in above- mentioned New H3C Products (running Version 7.1.086 and above). * Maturity Level: Product * Coverage: Almost all New types. Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 * 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, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", RFC 2439, DOI 10.17487/RFC2439, November 1998, . [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, . [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, . Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 2025 [RFC6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R. Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, DOI 10.17487/RFC6811, January 2013, . [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, . [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . [RFC9494] Uttaro, J., Chen, E., Decraene, B., and J. Scudder, "Long- Lived Graceful Restart for BGP", RFC 9494, DOI 10.17487/RFC9494, November 2023, . 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, . [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations] Lapukhov, P. and J. Tantsura, "Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations for BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-13, 6 January 2025, . Srivastava, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics February 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, . 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 22 August 2025 [Page 13]