Internet-Draft bmp-rel-enhancement June 2026
Geng, et al. Expires 5 December 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
GROW
Internet-Draft:
draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement-01
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
N. Geng
Huawei
Y. Gao
Zhongguancun Laboratory
S. Zhuang
Huawei
H. Wang
Huawei

Log More Routing Events in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)

Abstract

The Route Event Logging (REL) message is defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel], which enables monitored routers to report event-driven operational data to BMP collectors.

This document defines additional event code points for BGP FlowSpec RFC8955 [RFC8956] and BGP SR Policies [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]. These extensions enhance monitoring visibility for policy execution failures and improve network operation and troubleshooting capabilities.

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 5 December 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

BGP Adj-RIB-In, Loc-RIB, and Adj-RIB-Out are generated through BGP route exchange and routing policy processing. The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides comprehensive monitoring for BGP Adj-RIB-In [RFC7854], BGP Loc-RIB [RFC9069], and BGP Adj-RIB-Out [RFC8671].

The Route Event Logging (REL) message defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel] is designed to deliver event-driven fault logs and runtime status information from network devices to BMP monitoring servers.

In modern networks, BGP FlowSpec and BGP SR Policy are widely deployed for traffic filtering, redirection and segment routing traffic engineering. However, existing BMP REL mechanisms lack dedicated event logging for common failure scenarios of these advanced BGP features.

This document supplements new REL event types to cover typical abnormal failures of BGP FlowSpec and BGP SR Policy, filling the monitoring gap for policy control and forwarding execution anomalies.

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.

2. BGP FlowSpec Routing Event Extensions

The Log Action TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel]. The first byte defines the nature of the logging event, and additional data may follow depending on the code point. The following code points are defined for BGP FlowSpec in this document:

The UTF-8 diagnostic string is intended to provide additional implementation-specific information for troubleshooting. Its format is not specified by this document. When available, the diagnostic string SHOULD describe the local reason that caused the event to be generated. The Log Action code point defines the common semantics of the reported event.

3. BGP SR Policy Routing Event Extensions

Log Action TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel], the first byte defines the nature of the logging, depending on the code point additional data may follow. The following code points are defined for BGP SR Policies in this document:

The UTF-8 diagnostic string is intended to provide additional implementation-specific information for troubleshooting. Its format is not specified by this document. When available, the diagnostic string SHOULD describe the local reason that caused the event to be generated. The Log Action code point defines the common semantics of the reported event.

4. Operational Considerations

A monitored device may receive FlowSpec routes and SR Policy routes from controllers, route reflectors, or adjacent BGP peers. When the device detects a failure while validating or locally processing those routes or their associated actions, it reports the corresponding event and diagnostic information to the configured BMP monitoring collector using a BMP REL message.

BMP monitoring collectors SHOULD record, analyze, and correlate these extended routing events with the relevant BMP route or policy context when available. These events can be used for real-time alarming and offline fault diagnosis.

The failure events defined in this document do not define a corresponding recovery indication. Operators should use these events together with other BMP information and local operational state to determine whether the reported condition is still present.

5. Security Considerations

This document inherits all security requirements and considerations documented in Section 11 of [RFC7854]. BMP control sessions SHOULD only be established between authenticated and trusted monitoring devices to prevent unauthorized access to network internal routing information.

The UTF-8 diagnostic strings carried in extended REL events may contain sensitive data such as VRF names, policy identifiers and network address prefixes. Operators are recommended to properly isolate BMP monitoring data and restrict access permissions.

No new protocol interactions or message modes are introduced in this extension. Therefore, no additional security risks are introduced beyond the baseline BMP protocol.

6. IANA Considerations

This document requests IANA to assign seven new code points in the BMP Log Action TLV Registry established by [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel].

The requested code point assignments are as follows:

After permanent code points are allocated, all TBD markers will be replaced in subsequent document revisions.

7. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the comments from Jeffrey Haas.

8. Normative References

[RFC7854]
Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC8955]
Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M. Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8955>.
[RFC8956]
Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", RFC 8956, DOI 10.17487/RFC8956, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9256]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-rel]
Lucente, P. and C. Cardona, "Logging of routing events in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel-05, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-rel-05>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]
Haas, J., Henderickx, W., and A. Simpson, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-16, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-16>.

Authors' Addresses

Nan Geng
Huawei
Beijing
China
Yujia Gao
Zhongguancun Laboratory
Beijing
China
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
Beijing
China
Haibo Wang
Huawei
Beijing
China