%% You should probably cite rfc6286 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-14, number = {draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-14}, 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-bgp-identifier/14/}, author = {Enke Chen and Jenny Yuan}, title = {{Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4}}, pagetotal = 4, year = 2011, month = may, day = 4, abstract = {To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer and relaxes the "uniqueness" requirement so that only Autonomous-System-wide (AS-wide) uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issues. This document updates RFC 4271. {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}}, }