When IP Addresses Tell Stories: A Digital Tribute in IPv6
29/07/2025
By Alejandro Acosta, R+D Coordinator at LACNIC
Introduction
This blog post is based on IETF draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-in-memoriam/ and the related email discussion, which can be followed here.
Context
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a community that has been shaping the very essence of the Internet for decades. As the IETF approaches its 40th anniversary in 2026 and with a history of more than 55 years of the RFC series, it is inevitable that many of its key contributors have retired or passed away. Although prominent figures such as Jon Postel and Jun-ichiro Hagino have been honored through awards, current mechanisms are not scalable given the growing number of people who have made valuable contributions.
This has led to “draft-richardson-in-memoriam-00”, authored by Michael Richardson — an Internet Draft that proposes a novel way to posthumously recognize key contributors to the IETF by dedicating specific IPv6 addresses as memorials.
The Proposal: A /64 Prefix for Remembrance*
The main idea behind this draft is to assign a unique /64 IPv6 prefix from the IANA Special Use pool specifically for memorials. This new prefix would be called the “IETF In-Memoriam prefix” and would involve the creation of a new sub-registry maintained using the IESG Approval process.
How Would Digital Memorials Work?
- A permanent PTR and TXT record would be established in the ip6.arpa zone for each honored individual.
- A TXT record would list the person’s name and their years (for example, “Frederick J. Baker (February 28, 1952 – June 18, 2025)”).
- A second TXT record would provide a URL to an obituary or a relevant IETF Datatracker page (for instance, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Baker_(ingeniero) or https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Fred%20Baker).
The proposal even suggests a creative way to assign the IPv6 address itself, using the 64-lower bits to represent the numbers of the RFCs authored by the person. For example, the given address of Fred Baker, a prolific author of over 60 RFCs, might be 2001:TBD:1220:2804:4595:8028, in reference to some of his most notable RFCs.
Key Considerations and Community Feedback
As with any new proposal at the IETF, the draft has generated discussion and raised important considerations among the community:
(Free access, no subscription required)
Privacy and sensitivity: The draft stresses that the families of the deceased should be consulted and approve the record before it is made public, recognizing that this information might be considered intrusive or private.
Security against fraud: To prevent false memorials, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is advised to seek multiple sources of corroboration and react slowly to new proposals, allowing time for fact-checking.
Fit within protocols or practices: S. Moonesamy raised the question of whether requests in Section 5 of the draft fit within the RFC 6890 guidelines for reserving “special-purpose” address blocks to support new protocols or practices. Michael Richardson believes this would be considered a “practice.”
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LACNIC.