Hi Saumya, I have a question regarding the following point you raised: Section 4 says "In Stats messages, counts MUST reflect the filtered RIB numbers and not the original RIB ones," but it stops short of stating that the F flag itself be set consistently in the Stats message's Peer Header for that same session.
To make sure I'm following correctly, let me walk through a quick scenario: Suppose Peer 1 (a BMP client) receives two types of routes from its neighbor, tagged with Community 1 and Community 2 respectively. There are N1 routes with Community 1 and N2 routes with Community 2. Now, suppose Peer 1 applies an outbound filtering policy, sending only the N1 routes (tagged with Community 1) to the BMP server via Route Monitoring (RM) Adj-RIB-In messages. Naturally, these BMP RM messages will have the F Flag set. According to Section 4, for Stats messages, "counts MUST reflect the filtered RIB numbers and not the original RIB ones." This means Peer 1 should report a count of N1 to the BMP server via Stat Type 7 (Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-In). My question is: Does this mean the BMP server no longer needs to know the total/original count (N1 + N2) present in Peer 1's actual Adj-RIB-In? Or is there a scenario where the server still needs visibility into the unfiltered baseline? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Best regards, Shunwan From: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 6:24 PM To: Srivastava, Mukul <[email protected]>; gengnan <[email protected]>; Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> Cc: Grow <[email protected]> Subject: [GROW] Re: Question on draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement Hi Mukul, That's a helpful clarification, thank you. It's good to be reminded that F flag lives in the shared Peer Header rather than being RM-specific, so it's structurally available to Stats messages too. Looking at the current adj-ribs-filtered-00 text again with that in mind, I think it actually pins down exactly the gap: · Section 4 says "In Stats messages, counts MUST reflect the filtered RIB numbers and not the original RIB ones," but it stops short of stating that the F flag itself be set consistently in the Stats message's Peer Header for that same session. · So as written, an implementation could arguably satisfy the letter of the text by adjusting the counts while leaving F unset (or inconsistent) on the Stats side o This is exactly the inconsistency you flagged as unhelpful for correlation. Would it make sense to tighten this into an explicit MUST, something like: · "The Peer F Flag MUST be set consistently across all BMP message types that share this Peer Header for the lifetime of the session (Route Monitoring, Stats Report, Route Mirroring). · An implementation MUST NOT report F=1 in one message type while reporting F=0 (or omitting the equivalent filtered-count adjustment) in another, for the same peer." Since you're already a co-author on adj-ribs-filtered, that operational-consideration addition (Section 5, or as a normative bullet in Section 4) seems like the cleanest, lowest-overhead fix and no new TLV needed for the RIB/Stats side at all. That said, it doesn't fully close Reshad/Nan's original question: adj-ribs-filtered-00 only talks about Adj-RIB-In/Out and Stats messages and says nothing about routing-event messages (draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement's actual subject). On that note, would it make sense for rel-enhancement to explicitly say event messages reuse this same Peer F Flag bit (with the same cross-message consistency rule above), rather than defining a separate mechanism? · That would give collectors one consistent signal to check across RM, Stats, and event messages, with a single small text addition on each side rather than a new generic flag. Your thoughts Nan, Reshad, Mukul on this ? Happy to help draft the exact text for either document if useful. Thanks, Saumya From: Srivastava, Mukul <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, 25 July 2026 at 8:50 PM To: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; gengnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Reshad Rahman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Grow <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [GROW] Re: Question on draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement Hello Saumya >>>>>> If a router locally rate-limits or drops events (per the mitigation text >>>>>> in draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement) and separately reports gauges >>>>>> such as the ones in * draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (RFC 9972) or * the policy-driven counters in draft-smc-grow-bmp-route-change-stats, a collector has no way to know that an observed gauge delta might not be fully explained by the event stream it received it may look like an unexplained jump. — [MS] - The BMP stats messages have BMP peer header. The filter flag is part of the BMP peer header. If the filter flag is not set in stats message, while the other msg had filter flag set, then the collector should use caution and know that the data it received was filtered while the stats count is not filtered. I would assume for ideal operation, the router should have flag set/unset for all events/data/stats message for a session. Inconsistency in this flag state between different messages, will not help in meaningful correlation at collector. I think we should add this in the operational consideration for filtered drafts, if it isn’t present already. Thanks Mukul From: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, July 25, 2026 at 2:37 AM To: gengnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Reshad Rahman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Grow <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [GROW] Re: Question on draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement Hi Nan, Reshad, I was going through the draft and couldn’t help bringing up another angle, (though not-unrelated) to the email chain discussion : The same blind spot effects statistics consumers, not just event-log consumers. If a router locally rate-limits or drops events (per the mitigation text in draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement) and separately reports gauges such as the ones in * draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats (RFC 9972) or * the policy-driven counters in draft-smc-grow-bmp-route-change-stats, a collector has no way to know that an observed gauge delta might not be fully explained by the event stream it received it may look like an unexplained jump. Rather than defining filtering-indication independently for events (in this draft) and for RIB streams (bmp-adj-ribs-filtered), would it make sense to define one small, generic TLV/flag, that any BMP consumer event, RM, or SR message can check? This would definitely help in achieving "telemetry completeness" More than happy and willing to sketch this as a short contribution if there's appetite, as we hit a related need while defining the per-peer gauges in draft-smc-grow-bmp-route-change-stats. Thanks, Saumya. From: gengnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, 23 July 2026 at 3:39 PM To: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Grow <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [GROW] Re: Question on draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement Hi Reshad, As stated in Section 3 of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-ribs-filtered: > ... be informative to the rest of the system that they should not make > decisions assuming that this stream is transmitting all the information about > it. The same logic seems to apply to event reporting. If critical events are filtered locally without any signal to the collector, monitoring systems may draw incorrect conclusions based on incomplete data. It would therefore be valuable to consider a mechanism to convey this filtering state for events. Best, Nan From: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 1:43 AM To: Grow <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [GROW] Question on draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement Hi, Appropriate caution SHOULD be taken when picking routing events to report, as next-hop related updates may produce heavy message loads during network instability. Mitigation measures SHOULD be deployed on both reporting and receiving sides. For example, local endpoints can apply event filtering controls, while receivers maintain corresponding processing mechanisms to handle potential high-volume event bursts gracefully. During the meeting today the text above was highlighted by Nan (based on feedback from Prasad). I have no issue with the feedback and text, but is there any indication of filtering sent to the collector? draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-ribs-filtered which was presented earlier adds a Peer F flag for Adj-Rib-In/Out, IIUC that doesn't cover events in draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement? IMO we want indication of filtering for "critical" events. Regards, Reshad.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
