Hi Saumya, Thank you for your proposal. We can work together to figure out how to integrate your contributed content, and some points may need discussion during this process.
Could you please create a PR to the repo (https://github.com/XiaoTianCan/BMP-docs)? Once merged, we can bring the discussion outcomes back to the WG. Thanks. Contributions and comments from other WG members are also welcome. Best, Nan From: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:03 PM To: Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Changwang Lin <[email protected]>; Srivastava, Mukul <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] Comments on draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-01 : applicability to EVPN/IRB and inter-VRF leaking Hi Shunwan, Nan, Haibo, Thanks for the quick and positive turnaround. I am glad the Remote VRF Information TLV generalization is useful. Below is a concrete proposal for the EVPN/IRB text and worked example we'd like to contribute to -02. 1. Proposed addition: New subsection under Section 2.1 (Remote VRF Information TLV), e.g., "2.1.4. Applicability to EVPN Type-5/IRB Inter-VRF Route Leaking”. The TLV as defined (Information Type/Length, Index, AFI, SAFI, Remote BGP ID, Remote Route Distinguisher) already generalizes cleanly to EVPN (AFI=25, SAFI=70) without any wire-format change, only an applicability statement and example are needed. Proposed text: “" The Remote VRF Information TLV defined in Section 2.1 applies equally to EVPN Loc-RIB [RFC9069] reporting for EVPN Route Type 5 (IP Prefix Route) [RFC7432] [RFC9135] routes that have been leaked between EVPN Instances (EVIs) via Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB), by setting AFI=25, SAFI=70 in the TLV. This addresses the "dynamic inter-VRF route leaking (IVRL)” gap noted in [I-D.saum-grow-bmp-afi-safi-evpn], which defines per-EVI counters (Stats Type=1) that quantify how many routes were leaked into a given EVI, but does not itself identify which remote EVI each leaked route came from. This document's TLV supplies that missing "from which remote EVI" detail; the two mechanisms are intended to be used together, not as alternatives. “" 2. Proposed worked example (parallel to Figures 1-4/8-9, EVPN/IRB case): PE1 hosts EVI11 (RD11, import RT1) with a symmetric-IRB L3VNI. PE2 hosts EVI21 (RD21, export RT1), whose locally attached CE advertises IP Prefix P1 as an EVPN Route Type 5. PE1 imports P1 into EVI11 via IRB. Today, PE1 reporting the Loc-RIB routing information in EVI11 to the BMP server only shows: Prefix: P1 Nexthop: <PE2 address> Peer Distinguisher: RD11 --> The RD of EVI11 on PE1 Peer Address: 0.0.0.0 Peer BGP ID: <PE1 router-id> --> The router-id of EVI11 And, with no way for the collector to tell that P1 was leaked in from EVI21 on PE2 specifically (as opposed to being locally originate in EVI11, or leaked from some other EVI sharing RT1). Using the Remote VRF Information TLV (AFI=25, SAFI=70): Prefix: P1 Nexthop: <PE2 address> Peer Distinguisher: RD11 --> The RD of EVI11 on PE1 Peer Address: 0.0.0.0 Peer BGP ID: <PE1 router-id> --> The router-id of EVI11 Remote BGP ID: <PE2 address> Remote Route Distinguisher: RD21 --> The RD of the remote EVI A collector correlating this with the per-EVI leaked-route gauge ([I-D.saum-grow-bmp-afi-safi-evpn] Section 2.2, Stats Type=1, Subtype=5 for Route Type 5) can now attribute both "how many routes were leaked into EVI11" (the gauge) and "specifically which remote EVI they came from" (this TLV) from a single, correlated BMP feed. 3. Registry note: our companion draft [I-D.dikshit-grow-bmp-rd-scoped-rib-stats] already reserves Family value 1 ("L3VPN (VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 Loc-RIB)") in its RD-Scoped Statistics Family registry as an offer for this document (or a companion) to adopt as a statistics-side complement to the Remote VRF Information TLV, should you want a gauge (e.g. "leaked routes from remote RD X") alongside the TLV rather than only per-route TLV attachment. No action needed on your side unless useful ; flagging it since it's directly relevant to the EVPN/IRB text above. Would you prefer we send the above as a literal text diff against your -01 .txt/.xml source, or is a prose description like the above enough for you to fold in yourselves for -02? Thanks again. Looking forward to working on this together. Best regards, Saumya (on behalf of Mukul Srivastava and Changwang Lin, co-authors of [I-D.saum-grow-bmp-afi-safi-evpn] and [I-D.dikshit-grow-bmp-rd-scoped-rib-stats]) From: Zhuangshunwan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 28 July 2026 at 11:59 AM To: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Changwang Lin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Srivastava, Mukul <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [GROW] Comments on draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-01 : applicability to EVPN/IRB and inter-VRF leaking Hi Saumya, Greatly appreciate your positive feedback on the Remote VRF Information TLV approach. Please feel free to integrate your team's ideas and proposals into the -02 version. Let's collaborate to shape a comprehensive new version together. Best regards, Shunwan (on behalf of the co-authors of draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib) From: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 6:50 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Changwang Lin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Srivastava, Mukul <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [GROW] Comments on draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-01 : applicability to EVPN/IRB and inter-VRF leaking Hi Shunwan, Nan, Haibo, The Remote VRF Information TLV nicely closes the "which remote VPN instance did this best-path come from" gap in RFC 9069 Loc-RIB reporting. I believe there's a directly analogous problem on the EVPN side that this draft's mechanism could cover with minor generalization: * draft-saum-grow-bmp-afi-safi-evpn defines per-EVI EVPN RIB stats keyed by RD (Section 2.2), and separately calls out "dynamic inter-VRF route leaking (IVRL)" for EVPN Type-5/IRB routes as an area needing counters. * Today your draft scopes the Remote VRF Information TLV to VPNv4/VPNv6 Loc-RIB only (Figure 1 example). * Would you be open to extending the applicability statement to the EVPN AFI/SAFI (25/70). * Thus, single Remote VRF Information TLV mechanism covers both L3VPN and EVPN-IRB inter-VRF leak visibility? * If that's in scope for a -02, we'd like to contribute the EVPN-side text and an example (analogous to your Figure 1) showing an EVPN Type-5 (prefix) route leaked across VRFs with the Remote VRF Information TLV attached. (Hi Nan, a separate topic from your rel-enhancement/filtering thread which I was trying keep pace with. Just flagging in case both land in your inbox close together.) Let us know if a joint revision makes sense, happy to send a draft diff. @Srivastava, Mukul<mailto:[email protected]> and @Changwang Lin<mailto:[email protected]> are also co-author to draft-saum-grow-bmp-afi-safi-evpn Thanks , Saumya
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
