%% You should probably cite draft-king-rtgwg-challenges-in-routing instead of this I-D.
@techreport{king-irtf-challenges-in-routing-01,
    number =    {draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing-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-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/01/},
    author =    {Daniel King and Joanna Dang and Adrian Farrel},
    title =     {{Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes in Address Semantics}},
    pagetotal = 39,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {Historically, the meaning of an IP address has been to identify an interface on a network device. Routing protocols have been developed based on the assumption that a destination address has this semantic. Many proposals have been made to add semantics to IP addresses. These proposals may set the meaning of an address within the scope of a limited domain, or suggest an address semantic that is meaningful at specific points in the network (such as the source and destination), and ideally can continue to be used without special interpretation at transit points. This document presents a brief survey of technologies related to IP address semantic proposals and describes the challenges to the existing routing system that they present. It then summarizes the opportunities for research into new or modified routing protocols to make use of new address semantics. It does not pass comment on the advisability or practicality of any of the solutions. This document is presented as study to support further research into clarifying and understanding the issues without directly proposing technical solutions that are ready for productization, deployment, or standardization.},
}