[GROW] Re: review request: BMP statistics scoping and interoperability

[Paolo Lucente <[e-mail]>]

Hi Saumya, All,

I think your proposal to make a "super draft" around statistics instead 
of doing sparse efforts here and there - which for once they are sparse 
but they are also difficult to track and put together in one framework - 
has definitely some merit. The details can be worked out along the way.

I wanted to take this opportunity for a side consideration, this did 
emerge actually from a recent conversation Camilo and myself had around 
the F flag draft: we are collectively putting lots of effort and 
attention to statistics in BMP but how important and, even more 
importantly, how used are they? So, especially among operators / BMP 
users reading, could we do something as basic as a show of hands (of 
course the more elaboration the better) in this sense? Are you using 
statistics? Yes/no? If into elaborating more: for what use-case(s), ie. 
just storing them for analysis, some sort of validation, else?

Paolo


On 17/8/26 15:08, Dikshit, Saumya wrote:
> 
> Hello All ,
> 
> I would like feedback on a BMP statistics issue that appears to be 
> missing from the current discussion.
> 
> There are several ways to represent the same class of object in BMP 
> today: per-instance gauge values scoped by AFI/SAFI, RD, EVPN instance, 
> or route-change policy.
> A collector that wants to support all of these may end up needing 
> multiple incompatible parsers for essentially the same operational concept.
> This is already being discussed in parallel emails chains and this the 
> gap I am trying to address with the following drafts:
> 
>   *
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saumthimma-evpn-ip-binding-
>     sync/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saumthimma-evpn-ip-
>     binding-sync/>
>   *
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dikshit-grow-bmp-rd-scoped-
>     rib-stats/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dikshit-grow-bmp-
>     rd-scoped-rib-stats/>
>   *
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smc-grow-bmp-route-change-
>     stats/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smc-grow-bmp-route-
>     change-stats/>
> 
> 
> This is an ask for review comments on the direction:
> 
>   *
>     whether a common instance-scoped / RD-scoped BMP statistics
>     structure is the right approach, and whether the statistics
>     ecosystem needs a shared pattern before these extensions proliferate.
> 
> 
> I would especially value feedback from people working on:
> 
> - BMP statistics
> - BMP data models
> - EVPN and VPN RIB reporting
> - route-change and policy-driven telemetry
> 
> If the WG thinks a common pattern is useful, I would be happy to align 
> the drafts around that structure.
> If not, It would be great to know about it now, than discovering it  later.
> 
> Thanks.
> Saumya Dikshit