Hi Med/Paolo/WG, 1. Stats that apply to both global and per-afi-safi - we do lack consistency here, at times only global or only afi-safi is defined. We should require, both to be defined or I would like to propose another option - that for this type of stats, we only define (and send) the per afi-safi stats and the collector can add up them up to compute global stats 😊. This helps reduce a bit of load on the sending Router + save bandwidth on the network, in scale scenarios, the number of Peers may be as high as 5k, with a typical stats interval of say 3 minutes, this does add-up.
2. On the encoding side, I don’t have a strong preference if a separate stats type for both is used or we use 1 stats type and set afi/safi to zero but do appreciate the static format point from Paolo, in general it is indeed helpful. Only thing is afi/safi of 0/0 is reserved by IANA - we leveraging that for our standardization is something to think about ? Thanks /snnp (Prasad) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 27 November 2025 13:12 To: Paolo Lucente <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [GROW] Global vs per-AFI/SAFI (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats) Hi Paolo, (removing all lists, except grow) I'd like we focus on: > On Global vs per-AFI/SAFI messages: where possible i like to favor a > static format, for example every message would be per-AFI/SAFI where > if AFI/SAFI are both set to zero it means it's Global. The pro is that > we would make stats auto-parseable by a collector; the con is that we > would potentially waste 3 bytes per stat TLV -- something we could > further sophisticate, saving auto-parsing, by introducing an innocent > bit saying whether AFI/SAFI will follow or not before the gauge / > value. This would avoid your duplication point, Ketan, and you are > right that currently there is no guidance in this sense -- hence > myself throwing some ideas. Whether we assign a dedicated type for global or infer it for specific AFI/SAFI values are design options that have trade-of. I see what we will lose, but what are we gaining in having a common type for both? That is IMO the key question. Also, I'd like we remind ourselves that the space is large enough and even that can't used as an argument: 0-32767 Standards Action 32768-65530 First Come First Served. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Paolo Lucente <[email protected]> > Envoyé : mercredi 26 novembre 2025 01:53 À : Ketan Talaulikar > <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc : > [email protected]; grow- [email protected]; > [email protected] Objet : Re: [GROW] Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on > draft-ietf-grow- > bmp-bgp-rib-stats-16: (with DISCUSS) > > > Hi Ketan, > > On the two discussion points: > > discuss 1) Complementing answers from Jeff: while it's not the role of > this document or draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv to make any > definition (ie. route vs path, primary vs backup etc.), we have two > documents that speak about things with a certain degree of affinity: > maybe we can avoid both to use similar terminology independently; we > could explain the terminology in one document (draft-ietf-grow- > bmp-path-marking-tlv would be the place to do that, > IMO) and place a reference in the other and let it re-use the > terminology. > > The immediate con that comes to mind is that we introduce a dependency > among a document already in IESG court over one that has still a bit > of mileage to do in the WG (although i think we are almost done with > it). > > A further idea could be to lock the two documents up by adding a "path > status" field in relevant stats types defined in draft-ietf- > grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats referencing the path code points defined in > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv; the main con i see is that - > guess we would agree on a static format for stats (see next > point) - it would break auto-parsing of stats in a BMP collector. > > discuss 2) There is a couple of points to unpack: > > BMP messages include a per-peer header where there are peer flags. > Turning and twisting some of these, one can say whether content of the > BMP message belongs to Adj-Rib-In pre/post policy, Adj-Rib-Out > pre/post policy, Loc-Rib. Of course one can't mix-and-match stats for > different vantage points as part of the same Stats message; one Stats > message per covered vantage point is needed -- sub- optimal but this > is how BMP operates today and, especially for periodic messages, maybe > good enough. > > On Global vs per-AFI/SAFI messages: where possible i like to favor a > static format, for example every message would be per-AFI/SAFI where > if AFI/SAFI are both set to zero it means it's Global. The pro is that > we would make stats auto-parseable by a collector; the con is that we > would potentially waste 3 bytes per stat TLV -- something we could > further sophisticate, saving auto-parsing, by introducing an innocent > bit saying whether AFI/SAFI will follow or not before the gauge / > value. This would avoid your duplication point, Ketan, and you are > right that currently there is no guidance in this sense -- hence > myself throwing some ideas. > > Paolo > > > On 25/11/25 09:27, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker wrote: > > Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-16: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut > > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot- > positi > > > ons%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cfc730ee76e6 > 649d > > > 5404d08de2c86221f%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638 > 9971 > > > 51780426134%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOi > IwLj > > > AuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C% > 7C%7 > > > C&sdata=WLJDaMqIketlbEhWUHoC%2B1dg9L2Yw62DQB5b%2F432tdM%3D&reserve > d=0 > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > here: > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > data > > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib- > stats%2F&data=05% > > > 7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cfc730ee76e6649d5404d08de2c > 8622 > > > 1f%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638997151780455905 > %7CU > > > nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsI > lAiO > > > iJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KkP > gNNy > > XADCI%2F34fK7i9xe%2BL1WNIU0YXK7qZLCCsU4k%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > > > Thanks to the authors and the WG for this document. > > > > Note: this ballot has been updated for v16 of the document. The > > previous number of points is retained. Points that have been > addressed are deleted. > > > > Please find below certain points that I would like to discuss. > > > > <discuss-1> Semantics of routes, paths, primary, and backup. > > > > Section 2 of this document says: > > Primary route: A route to a prefix that is considered the best > route > > by the BGP decision process [RFC4271] and actively used for > forwarding > > traffic to that prefix. Backup route: A backup route is eligible > for > > route selection, but it is not selected as the primary route and > is > > also installed in the Loc-RIB. It is not used until all primary > routes > > become unreachable. Backup routes are used for fast convergence > in the event of failures. > > > > Consider an BGP route for destination prefix x/y is a multipath: > > x/y via BGP NH1 (path1) (best) > > via BGP NH2 (path2) (multipath - say ECMP) > > via BGP NH3 (path3) (backup) > > via BGP NH4 (path4) (valid but not best/multipath/backup) > > via BGP NH5 (path5) (invalid - for whatsover reason) > > > > This is a single route. The > best/multipath/backup/valid/invalid/etc > > are qualifiers of its paths. Except for two stats that refer to > paths > > (stale and suppressed), everything is referring to routes. I > would > > like to discuss the semantics of route vs path. It seems to me > like > > some of the stats are for paths and not routes. > > > > In general, I think the use of the terms primary/backup which > are > > related to forwarding plane aspects can be confusing. Instead, > perhaps > > using terms that are more suitable for BGP Loc-RIB would be > better? > > I've suggested some of them above for consideration. Also refer > to > > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv - the terms of stats should > be aligned across the BMP documents? > > > > Furthermore, there is a wrong assumption that backup paths are > only > > activated when all primary paths are down. This is very much > implementation dependent. > > Some implementations have a 1:1 provisioning of primary/backup - > where > > the backup would get used when its specific primary goes down - > this > > draws on the FRR notion in the forwarding planes. Refer to the > > definition in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv > > > > These clarifications have implications on several of the stats > as they > > are defined currently. > > > > <discuss-2> Section 3 has the following text and Section 4 > introduces > > a table that brings up an interesting aspect. > > > > "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; refer to Section 4 for more details." > > > > For types 24 through 28, they are applicable for both Adj-RIB-In > and Loc-RIB. > > How does one know what is being reported? Can this be clarified? > Seems > > like this is the first document introducing such overloaded > types but > > I don't find the reason why this is being done. There is also a > sort > > of duplication for same stat being both global as well as per > afi/safi > > - is there any guidance on whether only one of them needs to be > > supported (this way avoiding the race conditions and > discrepancies in their totaling)? > > > > It is important to clarify these aspects if this is going to set > a > > precedent/guidance for other similar stats in BMP in future > documents? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GROW mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
