%% You should probably cite draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision instead of this I-D.
@techreport{litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00,
    number =    {draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling/00/},
    author =    {Stephane Litkowski and Swadesh Agrawal and Keyur Patel and Shunwan Zhuang},
    title =     {{Modifying RFC5549 VPNv4 over IPv6 next hop handling procedures}},
    pagetotal = 8,
    year =      2019,
    month =     nov,
    day =       4,
    abstract =  {RFC4364 and RFC4659 define respectively BGP extensions to provide VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 services. When defined RFC5549 has brought up an inconsistency in how the next hop is encoded when a VPN-IPv4 NLRI carries an IPv6 next hop compared to RFC4364 and RFC4659. For some reasons, existing and deployed implementations of RFC5549 haven't followed the specification and are using an VPN-IPv6 next hop as in RFC4364 and RFC4659. Moving these implementations to be compliant with RFC5549 may break existing network deployments. This document proposes a modification of RFC5549 to enable compliancy of these implementations. These document also proposes additional modifications of RFC5549 to address missing points.},
}