



GROW                                                             N. Geng
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Gao
Expires: 5 December 2026                         Zhongguancun Laboratory
                                                               S. Zhuang
                                                                 H. Wang
                                                                  Huawei
                                                             3 June 2026


      Log More Routing Events in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
                 draft-geng-grow-bmp-rel-enhancement-01

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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  BGP FlowSpec Routing Event Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BGP SR Policy Routing Event Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

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.








Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


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:

   *  TBD1 = Redirect-to-VRF-Fail.  The BGP FlowSpec redirect-to-VRF
      action is defined in [RFC8955].  This event indicates that a
      received FlowSpec redirect-to-VRF action cannot be resolved,
      installed, or executed on the monitored device for the target
      Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instance.  For example, the
      target VRF instance may be unavailable or the corresponding
      redirect action may fail during local processing.  Data contains a
      UTF-8 diagnostic string.

   *  TBD2 = Redirect-to-Nexthop-Fail.  The BGP FlowSpec redirect-to-IP
      action is defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip].  This
      event indicates that a received FlowSpec redirect-to-IP action
      cannot be resolved, installed, or executed on the monitored device
      for the target IPv4 or IPv6 next hop.  Data contains a UTF-8
      diagnostic string.

   *  TBD3 = Redirect-to-SR-Policy-Fail.  This event indicates that a
      received FlowSpec action that redirects traffic to an SR Policy
      cannot be resolved, installed, or executed on the monitored
      device.  For example, the referenced SR Policy may be unavailable
      or may not provide a usable forwarding behavior when the FlowSpec
      action is processed.  Data contains a UTF-8 diagnostic string.

   *  TBD4 = FlowSpec-Validation-Fail.  The BGP FlowSpec validation
      procedure is defined in [RFC8955].  This event indicates that a
      received FlowSpec route fails the FlowSpec validation procedure on
      the monitored device.  This event is distinct from failures that
      occur while locally resolving, installing, or executing a FlowSpec
      traffic action.  Data contains a UTF-8 diagnostic string.

   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



Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   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:

   *  TBD5 = Invalid-Candidate-Path.  This event indicates that a
      candidate path is considered invalid.  The validity of a candidate
      path is described in Section 5 of [RFC9256].  Data contains a
      UTF-8 string whose value can be organized freely by an
      implementation and is meant to give additional information about
      why the log was made.

   *  TBD6 = Invalid-Segment-List.  This event indicates that a segment
      list of a candidate path is considered invalid.  The validity of a
      segment list is described in Section 5 of [RFC9256].  Data
      contains a UTF-8 string whose value can be organized freely by an
      implementation and is meant to give additional information about
      why the log was made.

   *  TBD7 = Exceeded-Spec-Limit.  Data contains a UTF-8 string to
      indicate violations including exceeding the maximum number of SR
      Policies or Segment Lists.

   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.







Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   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:

   *  Redirect-to-VRF-Fail (TBD1)

   *  Redirect-to-Nexthop-Fail (TBD2)

   *  Redirect-to-SR-Policy-Fail (TBD3)

   *  FlowSpec-Validation-Fail (TBD4)

   *  Invalid-Candidate-Path (TBD5)

   *  Invalid-Segment-List (TBD6)

   *  Exceeded-Spec-Limit (TBD7)




Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   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, June 2016,
              <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, November
              2019, <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, December 2020,
              <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, December 2020,
              <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, February 2022,
              <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, March 1997,
              <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,
              May 2017, <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, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.




Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   [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, 2 March 2026,
              <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, 6 February 2025,
              <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, 21 May 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
              flowspec-redirect-ip-16>.

Authors' Addresses

   Nan Geng
   Huawei
   Beijing
   China
   Email: gengnan@huawei.com


   Yujia Gao
   Zhongguancun Laboratory
   Beijing
   China
   Email: gaoyj@zgclab.edu.cn


   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei
   Beijing
   China
   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com








Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             bmp-rel-enhancement                 June 2026


   Haibo Wang
   Huawei
   Beijing
   China
   Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com














































Geng, et al.             Expires 5 December 2026                [Page 8]
