%% You should probably cite rfc9514 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-01, number = {draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-01}, 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/01/}, 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 = 24, year = , month = , day = , abstract = {Segment Routing 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 the various protocols such as BGP, ISIS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS dataplane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their functions and other attributes via BGP.}, }