Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17

GROW M. Srivastava, Ed.
Internet-Draft Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: 6 June 2026 China Mobile
 C. Lin, Ed.
 New H3C Technologies
 J. Li
 China Mobile
 3 December 2025
 Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17
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).
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 6 June 2026.
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
 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 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. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 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 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 BGP route
 monitoring and analysis, improving 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 same as defined in [RFC7854].
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
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 used to stress importance for
 operators but are not required as formal implementation requirement.
2. Terminology
 This document makes use of the following terms:
 * Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains
 unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the
 local BGP speaker by its 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 Adj-RIBs-Out contains
 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
 local speaker's UPDATE 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 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" and "Collector" are equivalent to "Monitored
 Router" and "Monitoring Station", respectively. Also,
 "implementation" is used following the same usage in [RFC7854].
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
3. RIB Monitoring Statistics
 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.
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 4.8 of [RFC7854]). "Stat
 Data" is being referred 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 Address Family Identifier (SAFI) [RFC4760]
 Statistics. 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 [IANA-AFI]
 [IANA-SAFI].
 For Global Statistics, the "Stat Data" (value) field is a single
 64-bit unsigned integer gauge with "Stat Len" 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
 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" MUST be set as defined in Section 4.2 of of [RFC7854].
 A BMP implementation MUST ignore unrecognized stat types upon
 receipt.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
3.2. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
 * Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 pre-policy 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. 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 post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In.
 * Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by inbound policy. This gauge is
 different from stats type 0 defined in Section 4.8 of [RFC7854].
 The stats type 0 is a 32-counter which is a monotonically
 increasing number, while the stats type 22 is a 64-bit gauge which
 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy Adj-RIB-In accepted by 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB 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 route
 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) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy 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 has been declared stale by the BGP GR mechanism as
 described in Section 4.1 of [RFC4724].
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 * Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy 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 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 post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route threshold as
 defined in Section 6.7 of [RFC4271].
 * Type = 30: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes per-AFI/SAFI in
 post-policy Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route
 threshold which 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 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 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. 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 pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-In rejected by exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length
 supported by the local configuration.
 * Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 * Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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
 post-policy 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out rejected by outbound policy. These routes
 are active routes which 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.
 * Type = 39: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
 configured maximum.
 * Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge) Current number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI
 pre-policy 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 per-AFI/SAFI
 post-policy Adj-RIB-Out 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
 post-policy Adj-RIB-Out 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
 post-policy 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.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
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.
 +====+==========+=============+=======+=============+=============+
 |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 |
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
 | 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 (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.
 Some statistics are dependent on feature configurations, such as GR,
 LLGR, and RPKI, so the corresponding statistics SHOULD only be
 generated and sent when these features are enabled on the BMP
 producer. These statistics include 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
 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 in the
 Per-Peer Header of the corresponding BMP Statistics Report Message
 MUST set to 3.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 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, 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. 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 updates to minimize
 performance impact on 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 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.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
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 Statistics
 Types registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
 parameters.xhtml#statistics-types), part of the BMP parameters
 registry group (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
 parameters.xhtml).
 This document requests IANA to update these entries as follows.
 Also, the document requests IANA to update the reference cited for
 the entries with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.
 * Type = 18: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.
 * Type = 19: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-In.
 * Type = 20: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In.
 * Type = 21: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In.
 * Type = 22: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-In rejected by inbound policy.
 * Type = 23: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In accepted by inbound policy.
 * Type = 26: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by configured route damping
 policy.
 * Type = 27: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by GR events.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 * Type = 28: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by LLGR.
 * Type = 29: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In
 left before exceeding the received route threshold.
 * Type = 30: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received route threshold.
 * Type = 31: Number of routes currently in post-policy Adj-RIB-In or
 Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized route
 threshold.
 * Type = 32: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a license-customized
 route threshold.
 * Type = 33: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-In
 rejected due to exceeding the locally configured maximum AS_PATH
 length.
 * Type = 34: Number of routes currently in 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 per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying route origin AS number
 through the ROA of RPKI.
 * Type = 36: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In validated after verifying route origin AS number
 through the ROA of RPKI.
 * Type = 37: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-In whose RPKI route origin validation state is NotFound.
 * Type = 38: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-Out rejected by outbound policy.
 * Type = 39: Number of routes currently in pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out
 filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured
 maximum.
 * Type = 40: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
 Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
 configured maximum.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 * Type = 41: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after verifying route origin AS number
 through the ROA of RPKI.
 * Type = 42: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
 Adj-RIB-Out validated after verifying route origin AS number
 through the ROA of RPKI.
 * Type = 43: Number of routes currently in per-AFI/SAFI 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.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 - 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.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 - 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
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 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. 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>.
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 [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: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Authors' Addresses
 Mukul Srivastava (editor)
 Hewlett Packard Enterprise
 10 Technology Park Dr
 Westford, MA 01886
 United States of America
 Email: mukul.srivastava@hpe.com
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BMP New Statistics December 2025
 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
Srivastava, et al. Expires 6 June 2026 [Page 18]