Hi Prasad,
Agree myself too.
Some additional thoughts:
As it emerged from the conversation around
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats, a relevant point is how to express
applicability across RIB-views: using Peer Type/Peer Flag as in rfc7854
and rfc9096 or straightening it all out using the Stats Type, as in rfc8671.
Some reconciliation needs to be done there. Including perhaps, as hinted
by Jeff in one of his messages, determining how to best retire stale
stats types: guess we uniform all to rfc8671 model (what
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats does), then we may have to
re-define/retire some stats types from rfc7854 and/or rfc9096.
I was tending to do the design / guidance as part of
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv. But if we determine we ultimately don't depend
on a protocol version bump, for example for backward compatibility, we
could do this restructuring of Stats as part of a separate document.
Paolo
On 1/12/25 04:50, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Prasad, all,
Stats applicability across RIB-views (Y/N + which RIB-views if Y)
is another point we should recommend all stats type to include as
a guideline for better clarity / consistency
I agree this is worth considering.
I suggest to decorrelate it from this specific draft as that is beyond the
initial scope set for this draft.
A more practical approach would be that a volunteer (you :-)) edit a short
draft that covers that point and probably suggest updating the structure of the
registry to include the RIB applicability view:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml#statistics-types
The draft can go through normal WG process to gauge interest and tweak as
appropriate.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Narasimha Prasad S N (snprasad) <[email protected]>
Envoyé : vendredi 28 novembre 2025 09:05
À : [email protected]
Cc : Paolo Lucente <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<[email protected]>; draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-
[email protected]
Objet : RIB-view applicability for stats (Was: [GROW] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-16.txt)
Added another topic for discussion for the WG (following Med, to
start a new thread with a different subject line to facilitate
focussed discussion 😊)
Hi Paolo/Med/WG,
Stats applicability across RIB-views (Y/N + which RIB-views if Y)
is another point we should recommend all stats type to include as
a guideline for better clarity / consistency
Thanks
/snnp
(Prasad)
-----Original Message-----
From: Narasimha Prasad S N (snprasad)
Sent: 28 November 2025 13:30
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Paolo Lucente <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-
16.txt
Hi Changwang, Authors,
Went thru the latest revision 16
1. Addition of a RIB-view scope table is the newer version is
helpful. We seem to have picked only Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out and
LRIB only, but instead can we please include all 5 variants of
RIB-views (In-Pre/Post, LRIB, Out-pre/post) and clarify in table
and stats type of which of the RIB-views do the stats apply to.
2. Looking at the stats defined as applicable across Adj-RIB-In
and LRIB, if the answer to 'point C' below is 'Adj-RIB-In' only,
then it seems to me like, we don’t have a need for muxing of stats
in this draft.
| 24 | Y | N | Y |
| 25 | Y | N | Y |
| 26 | Y | N | Y |
| 27 | Y | N | Y |
| 28 | Y | N | Y |
| 31 | Y | N | Y |
| 32 | Y | N | Y |
A. These stats would only be applicable after bgp best-path is run
only in the LRIB view, but it is marked as multiplexed across In-
pre and lrib
- Type = 24: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI selected as primary route.
- Type = 25: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI selected as a backup route.
B. Following stats are Adj-RIB-In only (not LRIB) // In-Pre would
have routes suppressed, not showing up in In-Post
- Type = 26: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI suppressed by configured route damping policy.
// In-post, GR event marks them stale (do we want In-pre also here
?)
- Type = 27: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI marked as stale by Graceful Restart (GR) events.
- Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI marked as stale by Long-Lived Graceful Restart (LLGR).
C. Stats 29/30 are defined as Adj-RIB-In only, but Stats 31/32
their license counterparts are defined to be across LRIB and Adj-
RIB-In. Do you see the license thresholds being defined for both
Adj-RIB-In/LRIB ? Dhananjay has asked for more clarity on license
thresholds in the other thread, u could clarify these points
together
- Type = 31: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes left before
exceeding a license-customized route threshold.
- Type = 32: (64-bit Gauge) Current Number of routes in per-
AFI/SAFI left before exceeding a license-customized route
threshold.
3. Given the recent discussion on the WG mailer about
routes/paths, multi-path scenario, primary/backup + the latest
version updates clarifies a few things to avoid different
interpretations, but also makes some areas more confusing to me,
mentioning a few below
- it may be helpful to add a section on multi-path consideration
and provide more clarity on the definitions around this. We can
polish this a bit more in the draft across stats types (Eg: For
stats 24, for ECMP case, we can have multiple paths eligible to be
downloaded to system RIB - say if this count is 4 for a given
prefix, do we expect this count to be 1 or 4)
- The term route, path seem to be used interchangeably, sometimes
route refers to path as well - for example in Type 26, Type 27,
Type 28, we start the defn with routes but talk about paths later.
The definition of Primary and Backup route also uses route/path
interchangeably whilst stats type refers to routes.
- Add-path as in RFC7911 is towards BGP peers, this would be
independent of multi-path towards RIB. We could have one of these
enabled without the other (Eg: best-path in HW + add-path towards
peers)
Thanks
/snnp
(Prasad)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: 25 November 2025 08:52
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-
16.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-16.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Global Routing Operations
(GROW) WG of the IETF.
Title: Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics
Types
Authors: Mukul Srivastava
Yisong Liu
Changwang Lin
Jinming Li
Name: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-16.txt
Pages: 18
Dates: 2025-11-24
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).
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-
stats%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C71f31632c
df44acf3e2108de2e54f60f%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0
%7C638999139617621498%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRy
dWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ
%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GKPEdBK20wBr2xm7oi%2BufNQU4niKuHOthdXOGd
hEUsU%3D&reserved=0
There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-
stats-
16&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C71f31632cdf44ac
f3e2108de2e54f60f%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638
999139617666522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIl
YiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D
%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MbCKNfr6jj2a6Swk%2BbcMtsJsoa%2FLNK36y1l%2BG5UU
4QA%3D&reserved=0
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
author-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-
rib-stats-
16&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C71f31632cdf44ac
f3e2108de2e54f60f%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638
999139617701427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIl
YiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D
%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OX5RiSp3NdF2C89UAHXrJ5BnW4KrnQnwprALWrGrDXA%3D
&reserved=0
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
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]
