%% You should probably cite rfc9514 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08, number = {draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/08/}, author = {Gaurav Dawra and Clarence Filsfils and Ketan Talaulikar and Mach Chen and Daniel Bernier and Bruno Decraene}, title = {{BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6}}, pagetotal = 25, year = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.year' **, month = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date' **, day = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.day' **, abstract = {Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. This document defines extensions to BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) to advertise SRv6 segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the MPLS data-plane defined in a separate document.}, }