Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                M. Srivastava, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9972                    Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Category: Standards Track                                         Y. Liu
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             China Mobile
                                                             C. Lin, Ed.
                                                    New H3C Technologies
                                                                   J. Li
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                May 2026


        Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types

Abstract

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) described in RFC 7854 defines
   statistics message types to observe events that occur on a monitored
   router.  This document defines new statistics types to monitor BMP
   Adj-RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out Routing Information Bases (RIBs).

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9972.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 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
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Terminology
   3.  RIB Monitoring Statistics
     3.1.  Statistics Format
     3.2.  Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
     3.3.  Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition
   4.  Application Scope of Statistics
   5.  Implementation Considerations
   6.  Operational Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  IANA Considerations
   9.  Normative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

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.  Statistics 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 to improve 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
   Report message remains the 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.

      |  Note that the key words are used to stress importance for
      |  operations; they are not required as a formal implementation
      |  requirement.

2.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Adj-RIB-In:  As defined in Section 1.1 of [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]:

      |  The result of applying inbound policy to an Adj-RIB-In, but
      |  prior to the application of route selection to form the Loc-
      |  RIB.

   Adj-RIB-Out:  As defined in Section 1.1 of [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]:

      |  The result before applying the outbound policy to an
      |  Adj-RIB-Out.  This normally would match what is in the local
      |  RIB.

   Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out:  As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671]:

      |  The result of applying outbound policy to an Adj-RIB-Out.  This
      |  MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is actually transmitted to
      |  the peer.

   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]:

      |  A unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the
      |  attributes of a path to those destinations.

   The terms "producer" and "collector" are equivalent to "monitored
   router" and "monitoring station", respectively.  Also,
   "implementation" follows the same usage as in [RFC7854].

3.  RIB Monitoring Statistics

   This section defines different statistics types for Adj-RIB-In and
   Adj-RIB-Out monitoring types.  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) (see Section 4.8 of [RFC7854]).
   "Stat Data" is being referred to as "value" when defining various RIB
   Monitoring Statistics.

   Statistics defined in this document can be categorized into two
   granularities: Global Statistics and Per-AFI/SAFI (see [RFC4760])
   Statistics.  Statistics defined with Per-AFI/SAFI descriptions belong
   to Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics, while other statistics belong to Global
   Statistics.  Both Global Statistics and their corresponding Per-AFI/
   SAFI Statistics can be reported simultaneously.

   The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFI that a BGP
   speaker supports and negotiates with its peer.  The authoritative
   registries for AFI/SAFI values are maintained by IANA (see [IANA-AFI]
   and [IANA-SAFI]).

   For Global Statistics, the "Stat Data" (value) field is a single
   64-bit unsigned integer Gauge where the "Stat Len" field 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI,
   and a 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" field MUST be set as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7854].

   A BMP implementation MUST ignore unrecognized Stat Types upon
   receipt.

3.2.  Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition

   Type = 18: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.  This Gauge
      is similar to Stat 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 the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.  This Gauge is similar to Stat 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 20: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the post-policy Adj-RIB-In.

   Type = 21: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 22: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-In
      rejected by an inbound policy.  This Gauge is different from Stat
      Type 0 defined in Section 4.8 of [RFC7854].  Stat Type 0 is a
      32-bit counter that is a monotonically increasing number; the Stat
      Type 22 is a 64-bit Gauge that represents the current number of
      routes rejected by an inbound policy due to ongoing policy
      configuration changes.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 23: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In accepted by an inbound policy.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 26: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by a configured route-damping
      policy.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

      'Suppressed' refers to a route that 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 the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as stale by Graceful Restart (GR)
      events.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

      'Stale' refers to a route that has been declared stale by the BGP
      GR mechanism as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC4724].

   Type = 28: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

      'Stale' refers to a route that 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 the 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 in the per-AFI/SAFI in post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received-route threshold that
      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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 31: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the 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 the 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 33: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due
      to exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length supported by the local
      configuration.

   Type = 34: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI in pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-In rejected due to exceeding the maximum AS_PATH length
      supported by the local configuration.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 35: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying the route origin Autonomous
      System Number (ASN) through the Route Origin Authorization (ROA)
      of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6811].  This
      is the total number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of
      origin ASNs and a mismatch of prefix length.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-In validated after verifying the route origin ASN through
      the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811].

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 37: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

3.3.  Adj-RIB-Out RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition

   Type = 38: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out rejected by an outbound policy.  These routes are
      active routes that otherwise would have been advertised in the
      absence of an outbound policy that rejected them.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 39: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out filtered
      due to the AS_PATH length exceeding the locally configured
      maximum.

   Type = 40: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length exceeding the locally
      configured maximum.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after verifying the route origin ASN
      through the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811].  This is the total number
      of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin ASNs and a
      mismatch of prefix lengths.

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 42: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy
      Adj-RIB-Out validated after verifying the route origin ASN through
      the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811].

      The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

   Type = 43: (64-bit Gauge)
      Current number of routes in the 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 a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a
      64-bit Gauge.

4.  Application Scope of Statistics

   Table 1 briefly lists the statistics defined in this document and
   outlines their scope of application.

    +====+==========+=============+=======+=============+=============+
    |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      |
    +----+----------+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+
    | 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 Report messages remains unchanged from [RFC7854].
   This section outlines the implementation considerations for new BMP
   statistics.

   For backward compatibility, and absent any other policy, it is
   RECOMMENDED that BMP producers capable of generating both (Types 7
   and 18) and (Types 9 and 19) BMP statistics transmit both
   corresponding types simultaneously.  This allows BMP collectors to
   process either format according to their needs without disrupting
   existing implementations that rely on Types 7 or 9.  The selection of
   which statistics 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 statistics types
   remaining implementation specific.

   Some statistics are dependent on feature configurations, such as GR,
   LLGR, and RPKI; therefore, the corresponding statistics SHOULD only
   be generated and sent when these features are enabled on the BMP
   producer.  These statistics include the following 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];
   therefore, 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" field in the Per-Peer Header of the corresponding BMP
   Statistics Report message MUST set to 3.

   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 Types 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 the 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 statistics 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; 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.

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, part of the "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
   Parameters" registry group <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-
   parameters/>.

   IANA has listed these entries as follows.  This document serves as a
   reference for each entry.

        +======+=================================================+
        | Stat | Description                                     |
        | Type |                                                 |
        +======+=================================================+
        |  18  | Number of routes currently in the pre-policy    |
        |      | Adj-RIB-In.                                     |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  19  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.                          |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  20  | Number of routes currently in the post-policy   |
        |      | Adj-RIB-In.                                     |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  21  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In.                         |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  22  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected by an inbound    |
        |      | policy.                                         |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  23  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In accepted by an inbound   |
        |      | policy.                                         |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  26  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB suppressed by |
        |      | a configured route-damping policy.              |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  27  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as     |
        |      | stale by GR events.                             |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  28  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB marked as     |
        |      | stale by LLGR.                                  |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  29  | Number of routes currently in the post-policy   |
        |      | Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding the received-  |
        |      | route threshold.                                |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  30  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In left before exceeding    |
        |      | the received-route threshold.                   |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  31  | Number of routes currently in the post-policy   |
        |      | Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before exceeding a   |
        |      | license-customized route threshold.             |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  32  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In or Loc-RIB left before   |
        |      | exceeding a license-customized route threshold. |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  33  | Number of routes currently in the pre-policy    |
        |      | Adj-RIB-In rejected due to exceeding the        |
        |      | locally configured maximum AS_PATH length.      |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  34  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | pre-policy Adj-RIB-In rejected due to exceeding |
        |      | the locally configured maximum AS_PATH length.  |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  35  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In invalidated after        |
        |      | verifying the route origin ASN through the ROA  |
        |      | of the RPKI and mismatch of prefix length.      |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  36  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In validated after          |
        |      | verifying the route origin ASN through the ROA  |
        |      | of the RPKI.                                    |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  37  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-In whose RPKI route origin  |
        |      | validation state is NotFound.                   |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  38  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out rejected by an outbound  |
        |      | policy.                                         |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  39  | Number of routes currently in the pre-policy    |
        |      | Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH length      |
        |      | exceeding the locally configured maximum.       |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  40  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out filtered due to AS_PATH  |
        |      | length exceeding the locally configured         |
        |      | maximum.                                        |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  41  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after       |
        |      | verifying the route origin ASN through the ROA  |
        |      | of the RPKI and mismatch of prefix length.      |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  42  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-Out validated after         |
        |      | verifying the route origin ASN through the ROA  |
        |      | of the RPKI.                                    |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+
        |  43  | Number of routes currently in the per-AFI/SAFI  |
        |      | post-policy Adj-RIB-Out whose RPKI route origin |
        |      | validation state is NotFound.                   |
        +------+-------------------------------------------------+

                      Table 2: BMP Statistics Types

9.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors 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, Éric Vyncke, and Ketan Talaulikar for
   the IESG review.

Authors' Addresses

   Mukul Srivastava (editor)
   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
   10 Technology Park Dr
   Westford, MA 01886
   United States of America
   Email: mukul.srivastava@hpe.com


   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