RFC 9736: The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
RFC 7854, the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP), uses different message types for different purposes. Most of these are structured as Type, Length, Value (TLV). One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the Initiation message. Experience has shown that this namespace sharing was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the protocol. This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFCs 8671 and 9069 by moving defined codepoints into the newly introduced registry. Compliant implementations of RFCs 7854, 8671, and 9069 also comply with this specification.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9736
- Published
- March 2025
- Authors
- J. Scudder; P. Lucente
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 6
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9972Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics TypesCurrent
May 2026
- RFC 9072Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN MessageCurrent
July 2021
- RFC 8538Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful RestartCurrent
March 2019
- RFC 7705Autonomous System Migration Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH AttributeCurrent
November 2015
- RFC 5575Dissemination of Flow Specification RulesObsoleted
August 2009
- RFC 5492Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4Updated
February 2009
- RFC 9829Handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number ExtensionsCurrent
July 2025
- RFC 9582A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)Current
May 2024
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?