Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?IPv4 shortage is now becoming a reality - what is needed for IPv6 to work?MLD messages during IPv6 duplicate address detectionWhat is the advantage of multicasting in IPv6 (compared to broadcast)?Is it ok if multiple non-router devices send IPv6 RAs with same prefix in the same network?Why do we need IPv6?IPv6 6to4 mechanismHow does address resolution work with multicast, specifically IPv6?Are all the private IPv6 addresses nonoverlapping? If yes, is Route distinguisher required for IPv6?Cisco 3560G not passing IPv6 RA when VLAN without IPv6 addressHow are IPv6 addresses grouped?

Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options

Strange behavior of Object.defineProperty() in JavaScript

What does it mean that physics no longer uses mechanical models to describe phenomena?

Project Euler #1 in C++

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

Why are vacuum tubes still used in amateur radios?

Can two person see the same photon?

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https

What does this say in Elvish?

What is the difference between CTSS and ITS?

"klopfte jemand" or "jemand klopfte"?

How could we fake a moon landing now?

Co-worker has annoying ringtone

How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?

How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?

Do reserved cards get returned when gold token is spent?

Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?

Manga where all the characters were human/animal hybrids

Special flights

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?

If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?

What order were files/directories output in dir?

Select every other edge (they share a common vertex)



Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?



Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?IPv4 shortage is now becoming a reality - what is needed for IPv6 to work?MLD messages during IPv6 duplicate address detectionWhat is the advantage of multicasting in IPv6 (compared to broadcast)?Is it ok if multiple non-router devices send IPv6 RAs with same prefix in the same network?Why do we need IPv6?IPv6 6to4 mechanismHow does address resolution work with multicast, specifically IPv6?Are all the private IPv6 addresses nonoverlapping? If yes, is Route distinguisher required for IPv6?Cisco 3560G not passing IPv6 RA when VLAN without IPv6 addressHow are IPv6 addresses grouped?










10















Tanenbaum's Computer Networks says




Finally, IPv4 addresses can be written as a pair of colons and an old dotted
decimal number, for example:



::192.31.20.46



  1. Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
    subrange of the IPv6 address space?


  2. Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded
    into any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?



    Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Transition_from_IPv4 list several alternative ways of translation? If it is correct, then the embedding is not fixed.




  3. Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?



    For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the same address?



    • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?



  4. Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
    disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
    with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?


Thanks.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

    – Michael Hampton
    Mar 23 at 23:45
















10















Tanenbaum's Computer Networks says




Finally, IPv4 addresses can be written as a pair of colons and an old dotted
decimal number, for example:



::192.31.20.46



  1. Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
    subrange of the IPv6 address space?


  2. Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded
    into any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?



    Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Transition_from_IPv4 list several alternative ways of translation? If it is correct, then the embedding is not fixed.




  3. Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?



    For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the same address?



    • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?



  4. Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
    disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
    with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?


Thanks.










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

    – Michael Hampton
    Mar 23 at 23:45














10












10








10








Tanenbaum's Computer Networks says




Finally, IPv4 addresses can be written as a pair of colons and an old dotted
decimal number, for example:



::192.31.20.46



  1. Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
    subrange of the IPv6 address space?


  2. Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded
    into any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?



    Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Transition_from_IPv4 list several alternative ways of translation? If it is correct, then the embedding is not fixed.




  3. Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?



    For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the same address?



    • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?



  4. Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
    disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
    with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?


Thanks.










share|improve this question
















Tanenbaum's Computer Networks says




Finally, IPv4 addresses can be written as a pair of colons and an old dotted
decimal number, for example:



::192.31.20.46



  1. Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
    subrange of the IPv6 address space?


  2. Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded
    into any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?



    Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Transition_from_IPv4 list several alternative ways of translation? If it is correct, then the embedding is not fixed.




  3. Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?



    For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the same address?



    • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?


    Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?



  4. Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
    disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
    with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?


Thanks.







ip ipv4 ipv6 protocol-theory ip-address






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 23 at 17:19









Ron Maupin

68.6k1369125




68.6k1369125










asked Mar 23 at 14:38









TimTim

675518




675518







  • 3





    Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

    – Michael Hampton
    Mar 23 at 23:45













  • 3





    Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

    – Michael Hampton
    Mar 23 at 23:45








3




3





Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

– Michael Hampton
Mar 23 at 23:45






Beware of outdated textbooks. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses have been deprecated for almost 15 years, replaed by IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. Modern operating systems may not recognize them. See RFC 4291.

– Michael Hampton
Mar 23 at 23:45











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7















Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?




Yes, they are two separate, incompatible protocols with completely different addressing.



That book is out-of-date. The addressing to which it refers was deprecated a long time ago. it is referring to the old IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 that was deprecated. See RFC 5156, Special-Use IPv6 Addresses:




2.3. IPv4-Compatible Addresses



::/96 are the IPv4-compatible addresses [RFC4291].
These addresses are deprecated and should not appear on the public
Internet.




There is IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but it is not really used as addressing for packets:




2.2. IPv4-Mapped Addresses



::FFFF:0:0/96 are the IPv4-mapped addresses [RFC4291]. Addresses
within this block should not appear on the public Internet.




Also see the referenced RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture:




2.5.5. IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses



Two types of IPv6 addresses are defined that carry an IPv4 address in
the low-order 32 bits of the address. These are the "IPv4-Compatible
IPv6 address" and the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address".



2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address



The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as
follows:



| 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
|0000..............................0000|0000| IPv4 address |
+--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must
be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.



The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the
current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New
or updated implementations are not required to support this address
type.



2.5.5.2. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address



A second type of IPv6 address that holds an embedded IPv4 address is
defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses of IPv4
nodes as IPv6 addresses. The format of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address"
is as follows:



| 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
|0000..............................0000|FFFF| IPv4 address |
+--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


See [RFC4038] for background on the usage of the "IPv4-mapped
IPv6 address".






Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
subrange of the IPv6 address space?




Only under certain circumstances, but this is not normally recommended.




Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded into
any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?




Only a couple of IPv6 address ranges are designed for this, and they are not used for sending packets. This is not used in Global IPv6 addressing.




Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address
that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?




Not really. Conceptually, yes, for IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but that is not actually used for sending packets.




For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the
same address?



  • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?

  • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?

Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it
effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?




No, ::192.31.20.46 is an invalid IPv6 address because the IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 has been deprecated.



IPv4 and IPv6 are two separate, incompatible protocols that can coexist, but cannot directly communicate.



IPv6 has a loopback address of ::1.




Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?




IPv4 and IPv6 have completely separate addressing. IPv4 uses 32-bit addressing that is incompatible with the IPv6 128-bit addressing. The protocol headers are also very different in other ways. IPv6 was created after lessons learned in IPv4. Remember that IPv4 was an academic/government experiment that was never intended to be used the way it is today, and IPv6 is an attempt to correct the deficiencies in IPv4, but it is incompatible with IPv4 because of that.






share|improve this answer
































    10














    Number 4 is correct. V4 and v6 protocols are completely different with different formats and addressing schemes. The two addresses have the same relationship as telephone numbers and lottery numbers— that is, none.



    There have been many proposed methods of mapping v4 to v6 to allow for protocol translation, but most are deprecated today.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      I'm somewhat surprised that no existing answer mentioned 6to4.



      It allows to send an IPv6 packet to an IPv4 host, encapsulated within IPv4 packet of protocol type 41.



      6to4 addresses are of the type 2002:AABB:CCDD:suffix corresponding to IPv4 address A.B.C.D where A,B,C,D are decimal and AA,BB,CC,DD are hexadecimal. So, each IPv4 address actually has a whole /48 block of IPv6 addresses.



      6to4 is not just some notation mechanism allowing IPv4 addresses to be notated using IPv6 addresses, it's a real and working IPv6 transition mechanism.



      The performance and latency of 6to4 connectivity will be poor, however, so native IPv6 is preferred where such connectivity is available.



      So, my answer to IPv4 and IPv6 spaces being disjoint: not really, each IPv4 address has a /48 block of IPv6 addresses.






      share|improve this answer























      • The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

        – Ron Maupin
        Mar 24 at 15:03











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "496"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57903%2fare-the-ipv6-address-space-and-ipv4-address-space-completely-disjoint%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7















      Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?




      Yes, they are two separate, incompatible protocols with completely different addressing.



      That book is out-of-date. The addressing to which it refers was deprecated a long time ago. it is referring to the old IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 that was deprecated. See RFC 5156, Special-Use IPv6 Addresses:




      2.3. IPv4-Compatible Addresses



      ::/96 are the IPv4-compatible addresses [RFC4291].
      These addresses are deprecated and should not appear on the public
      Internet.




      There is IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but it is not really used as addressing for packets:




      2.2. IPv4-Mapped Addresses



      ::FFFF:0:0/96 are the IPv4-mapped addresses [RFC4291]. Addresses
      within this block should not appear on the public Internet.




      Also see the referenced RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture:




      2.5.5. IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses



      Two types of IPv6 addresses are defined that carry an IPv4 address in
      the low-order 32 bits of the address. These are the "IPv4-Compatible
      IPv6 address" and the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address".



      2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address



      The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
      transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as
      follows:



      | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
      +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
      |0000..............................0000|0000| IPv4 address |
      +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


      Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must
      be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.



      The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the
      current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New
      or updated implementations are not required to support this address
      type.



      2.5.5.2. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address



      A second type of IPv6 address that holds an embedded IPv4 address is
      defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses of IPv4
      nodes as IPv6 addresses. The format of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address"
      is as follows:



      | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
      +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
      |0000..............................0000|FFFF| IPv4 address |
      +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


      See [RFC4038] for background on the usage of the "IPv4-mapped
      IPv6 address".






      Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
      subrange of the IPv6 address space?




      Only under certain circumstances, but this is not normally recommended.




      Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded into
      any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?




      Only a couple of IPv6 address ranges are designed for this, and they are not used for sending packets. This is not used in Global IPv6 addressing.




      Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address
      that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?




      Not really. Conceptually, yes, for IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but that is not actually used for sending packets.




      For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the
      same address?



      • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?

      • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?

      Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it
      effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?




      No, ::192.31.20.46 is an invalid IPv6 address because the IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 has been deprecated.



      IPv4 and IPv6 are two separate, incompatible protocols that can coexist, but cannot directly communicate.



      IPv6 has a loopback address of ::1.




      Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
      disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
      with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?




      IPv4 and IPv6 have completely separate addressing. IPv4 uses 32-bit addressing that is incompatible with the IPv6 128-bit addressing. The protocol headers are also very different in other ways. IPv6 was created after lessons learned in IPv4. Remember that IPv4 was an academic/government experiment that was never intended to be used the way it is today, and IPv6 is an attempt to correct the deficiencies in IPv4, but it is incompatible with IPv4 because of that.






      share|improve this answer





























        7















        Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?




        Yes, they are two separate, incompatible protocols with completely different addressing.



        That book is out-of-date. The addressing to which it refers was deprecated a long time ago. it is referring to the old IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 that was deprecated. See RFC 5156, Special-Use IPv6 Addresses:




        2.3. IPv4-Compatible Addresses



        ::/96 are the IPv4-compatible addresses [RFC4291].
        These addresses are deprecated and should not appear on the public
        Internet.




        There is IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but it is not really used as addressing for packets:




        2.2. IPv4-Mapped Addresses



        ::FFFF:0:0/96 are the IPv4-mapped addresses [RFC4291]. Addresses
        within this block should not appear on the public Internet.




        Also see the referenced RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture:




        2.5.5. IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses



        Two types of IPv6 addresses are defined that carry an IPv4 address in
        the low-order 32 bits of the address. These are the "IPv4-Compatible
        IPv6 address" and the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address".



        2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address



        The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
        transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as
        follows:



        | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
        +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
        |0000..............................0000|0000| IPv4 address |
        +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


        Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must
        be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.



        The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the
        current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New
        or updated implementations are not required to support this address
        type.



        2.5.5.2. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address



        A second type of IPv6 address that holds an embedded IPv4 address is
        defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses of IPv4
        nodes as IPv6 addresses. The format of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address"
        is as follows:



        | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
        +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
        |0000..............................0000|FFFF| IPv4 address |
        +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


        See [RFC4038] for background on the usage of the "IPv4-mapped
        IPv6 address".






        Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
        subrange of the IPv6 address space?




        Only under certain circumstances, but this is not normally recommended.




        Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded into
        any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?




        Only a couple of IPv6 address ranges are designed for this, and they are not used for sending packets. This is not used in Global IPv6 addressing.




        Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address
        that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?




        Not really. Conceptually, yes, for IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but that is not actually used for sending packets.




        For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the
        same address?



        • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?

        • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?

        Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it
        effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?




        No, ::192.31.20.46 is an invalid IPv6 address because the IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 has been deprecated.



        IPv4 and IPv6 are two separate, incompatible protocols that can coexist, but cannot directly communicate.



        IPv6 has a loopback address of ::1.




        Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
        disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
        with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?




        IPv4 and IPv6 have completely separate addressing. IPv4 uses 32-bit addressing that is incompatible with the IPv6 128-bit addressing. The protocol headers are also very different in other ways. IPv6 was created after lessons learned in IPv4. Remember that IPv4 was an academic/government experiment that was never intended to be used the way it is today, and IPv6 is an attempt to correct the deficiencies in IPv4, but it is incompatible with IPv4 because of that.






        share|improve this answer



























          7












          7








          7








          Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?




          Yes, they are two separate, incompatible protocols with completely different addressing.



          That book is out-of-date. The addressing to which it refers was deprecated a long time ago. it is referring to the old IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 that was deprecated. See RFC 5156, Special-Use IPv6 Addresses:




          2.3. IPv4-Compatible Addresses



          ::/96 are the IPv4-compatible addresses [RFC4291].
          These addresses are deprecated and should not appear on the public
          Internet.




          There is IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but it is not really used as addressing for packets:




          2.2. IPv4-Mapped Addresses



          ::FFFF:0:0/96 are the IPv4-mapped addresses [RFC4291]. Addresses
          within this block should not appear on the public Internet.




          Also see the referenced RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture:




          2.5.5. IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses



          Two types of IPv6 addresses are defined that carry an IPv4 address in
          the low-order 32 bits of the address. These are the "IPv4-Compatible
          IPv6 address" and the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address".



          2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address



          The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
          transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as
          follows:



          | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
          +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
          |0000..............................0000|0000| IPv4 address |
          +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


          Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must
          be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.



          The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the
          current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New
          or updated implementations are not required to support this address
          type.



          2.5.5.2. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address



          A second type of IPv6 address that holds an embedded IPv4 address is
          defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses of IPv4
          nodes as IPv6 addresses. The format of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address"
          is as follows:



          | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
          +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
          |0000..............................0000|FFFF| IPv4 address |
          +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


          See [RFC4038] for background on the usage of the "IPv4-mapped
          IPv6 address".






          Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
          subrange of the IPv6 address space?




          Only under certain circumstances, but this is not normally recommended.




          Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded into
          any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?




          Only a couple of IPv6 address ranges are designed for this, and they are not used for sending packets. This is not used in Global IPv6 addressing.




          Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address
          that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?




          Not really. Conceptually, yes, for IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but that is not actually used for sending packets.




          For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the
          same address?



          • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?

          • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?

          Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it
          effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?




          No, ::192.31.20.46 is an invalid IPv6 address because the IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 has been deprecated.



          IPv4 and IPv6 are two separate, incompatible protocols that can coexist, but cannot directly communicate.



          IPv6 has a loopback address of ::1.




          Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
          disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
          with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?




          IPv4 and IPv6 have completely separate addressing. IPv4 uses 32-bit addressing that is incompatible with the IPv6 128-bit addressing. The protocol headers are also very different in other ways. IPv6 was created after lessons learned in IPv4. Remember that IPv4 was an academic/government experiment that was never intended to be used the way it is today, and IPv6 is an attempt to correct the deficiencies in IPv4, but it is incompatible with IPv4 because of that.






          share|improve this answer
















          Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?




          Yes, they are two separate, incompatible protocols with completely different addressing.



          That book is out-of-date. The addressing to which it refers was deprecated a long time ago. it is referring to the old IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 that was deprecated. See RFC 5156, Special-Use IPv6 Addresses:




          2.3. IPv4-Compatible Addresses



          ::/96 are the IPv4-compatible addresses [RFC4291].
          These addresses are deprecated and should not appear on the public
          Internet.




          There is IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but it is not really used as addressing for packets:




          2.2. IPv4-Mapped Addresses



          ::FFFF:0:0/96 are the IPv4-mapped addresses [RFC4291]. Addresses
          within this block should not appear on the public Internet.




          Also see the referenced RFC 4291, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture:




          2.5.5. IPv6 Addresses with Embedded IPv4 Addresses



          Two types of IPv6 addresses are defined that carry an IPv4 address in
          the low-order 32 bits of the address. These are the "IPv4-Compatible
          IPv6 address" and the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address".



          2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address



          The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6
          transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as
          follows:



          | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
          +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
          |0000..............................0000|0000| IPv4 address |
          +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


          Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must
          be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.



          The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the
          current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New
          or updated implementations are not required to support this address
          type.



          2.5.5.2. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address



          A second type of IPv6 address that holds an embedded IPv4 address is
          defined. This address type is used to represent the addresses of IPv4
          nodes as IPv6 addresses. The format of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address"
          is as follows:



          | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits |
          +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+
          |0000..............................0000|FFFF| IPv4 address |
          +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+


          See [RFC4038] for background on the usage of the "IPv4-mapped
          IPv6 address".






          Does it mean the IPv4 address space is embedded into the lowest
          subrange of the IPv6 address space?




          Only under certain circumstances, but this is not normally recommended.




          Is such embedding fixed? Can the IPv4 address space be embedded into
          any continuous subrange of the IPv6 address space?




          Only a couple of IPv6 address ranges are designed for this, and they are not used for sending packets. This is not used in Global IPv6 addressing.




          Does it mean that for any IPv4 address, there is some IPv6 address
          that refers to the same address as the IPv4 address?




          Not really. Conceptually, yes, for IPv4-Mapped addressing for IPv6, but that is not actually used for sending packets.




          For example, are ::192.31.20.46 and 192.31.20.46 effectively the
          same address?



          • if I send a message to ::192.31.20.46, will 192.31.20.46 receive my message?

          • if I send a message to 192.31.20.46, will ::192.31.20.46 receive my message?

          Will ::127.0.0.1 still be a loopback IP address, and if yes, is it
          effectively the same address as 127.0.0.1?




          No, ::192.31.20.46 is an invalid IPv6 address because the IPv4-Compatible addressing for IPv6 has been deprecated.



          IPv4 and IPv6 are two separate, incompatible protocols that can coexist, but cannot directly communicate.



          IPv6 has a loopback address of ::1.




          Or are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely
          disjoint (i.e. no overlapping), in the sense that when I communicate
          with a IPv6 address, I will not communicate with a IPv4 address?




          IPv4 and IPv6 have completely separate addressing. IPv4 uses 32-bit addressing that is incompatible with the IPv6 128-bit addressing. The protocol headers are also very different in other ways. IPv6 was created after lessons learned in IPv4. Remember that IPv4 was an academic/government experiment that was never intended to be used the way it is today, and IPv6 is an attempt to correct the deficiencies in IPv4, but it is incompatible with IPv4 because of that.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 23 at 17:36

























          answered Mar 23 at 17:08









          Ron MaupinRon Maupin

          68.6k1369125




          68.6k1369125





















              10














              Number 4 is correct. V4 and v6 protocols are completely different with different formats and addressing schemes. The two addresses have the same relationship as telephone numbers and lottery numbers— that is, none.



              There have been many proposed methods of mapping v4 to v6 to allow for protocol translation, but most are deprecated today.






              share|improve this answer



























                10














                Number 4 is correct. V4 and v6 protocols are completely different with different formats and addressing schemes. The two addresses have the same relationship as telephone numbers and lottery numbers— that is, none.



                There have been many proposed methods of mapping v4 to v6 to allow for protocol translation, but most are deprecated today.






                share|improve this answer

























                  10












                  10








                  10







                  Number 4 is correct. V4 and v6 protocols are completely different with different formats and addressing schemes. The two addresses have the same relationship as telephone numbers and lottery numbers— that is, none.



                  There have been many proposed methods of mapping v4 to v6 to allow for protocol translation, but most are deprecated today.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Number 4 is correct. V4 and v6 protocols are completely different with different formats and addressing schemes. The two addresses have the same relationship as telephone numbers and lottery numbers— that is, none.



                  There have been many proposed methods of mapping v4 to v6 to allow for protocol translation, but most are deprecated today.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 23 at 17:07









                  Ron TrunkRon Trunk

                  40k33781




                  40k33781





















                      0














                      I'm somewhat surprised that no existing answer mentioned 6to4.



                      It allows to send an IPv6 packet to an IPv4 host, encapsulated within IPv4 packet of protocol type 41.



                      6to4 addresses are of the type 2002:AABB:CCDD:suffix corresponding to IPv4 address A.B.C.D where A,B,C,D are decimal and AA,BB,CC,DD are hexadecimal. So, each IPv4 address actually has a whole /48 block of IPv6 addresses.



                      6to4 is not just some notation mechanism allowing IPv4 addresses to be notated using IPv6 addresses, it's a real and working IPv6 transition mechanism.



                      The performance and latency of 6to4 connectivity will be poor, however, so native IPv6 is preferred where such connectivity is available.



                      So, my answer to IPv4 and IPv6 spaces being disjoint: not really, each IPv4 address has a /48 block of IPv6 addresses.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                        – Ron Maupin
                        Mar 24 at 15:03















                      0














                      I'm somewhat surprised that no existing answer mentioned 6to4.



                      It allows to send an IPv6 packet to an IPv4 host, encapsulated within IPv4 packet of protocol type 41.



                      6to4 addresses are of the type 2002:AABB:CCDD:suffix corresponding to IPv4 address A.B.C.D where A,B,C,D are decimal and AA,BB,CC,DD are hexadecimal. So, each IPv4 address actually has a whole /48 block of IPv6 addresses.



                      6to4 is not just some notation mechanism allowing IPv4 addresses to be notated using IPv6 addresses, it's a real and working IPv6 transition mechanism.



                      The performance and latency of 6to4 connectivity will be poor, however, so native IPv6 is preferred where such connectivity is available.



                      So, my answer to IPv4 and IPv6 spaces being disjoint: not really, each IPv4 address has a /48 block of IPv6 addresses.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                        – Ron Maupin
                        Mar 24 at 15:03













                      0












                      0








                      0







                      I'm somewhat surprised that no existing answer mentioned 6to4.



                      It allows to send an IPv6 packet to an IPv4 host, encapsulated within IPv4 packet of protocol type 41.



                      6to4 addresses are of the type 2002:AABB:CCDD:suffix corresponding to IPv4 address A.B.C.D where A,B,C,D are decimal and AA,BB,CC,DD are hexadecimal. So, each IPv4 address actually has a whole /48 block of IPv6 addresses.



                      6to4 is not just some notation mechanism allowing IPv4 addresses to be notated using IPv6 addresses, it's a real and working IPv6 transition mechanism.



                      The performance and latency of 6to4 connectivity will be poor, however, so native IPv6 is preferred where such connectivity is available.



                      So, my answer to IPv4 and IPv6 spaces being disjoint: not really, each IPv4 address has a /48 block of IPv6 addresses.






                      share|improve this answer













                      I'm somewhat surprised that no existing answer mentioned 6to4.



                      It allows to send an IPv6 packet to an IPv4 host, encapsulated within IPv4 packet of protocol type 41.



                      6to4 addresses are of the type 2002:AABB:CCDD:suffix corresponding to IPv4 address A.B.C.D where A,B,C,D are decimal and AA,BB,CC,DD are hexadecimal. So, each IPv4 address actually has a whole /48 block of IPv6 addresses.



                      6to4 is not just some notation mechanism allowing IPv4 addresses to be notated using IPv6 addresses, it's a real and working IPv6 transition mechanism.



                      The performance and latency of 6to4 connectivity will be poor, however, so native IPv6 is preferred where such connectivity is available.



                      So, my answer to IPv4 and IPv6 spaces being disjoint: not really, each IPv4 address has a /48 block of IPv6 addresses.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 24 at 11:48









                      juhistjuhist

                      37217




                      37217












                      • The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                        – Ron Maupin
                        Mar 24 at 15:03

















                      • The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                        – Ron Maupin
                        Mar 24 at 15:03
















                      The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                      – Ron Maupin
                      Mar 24 at 15:03





                      The problem with your answer is that it leads people to believe that you can have an IPv6-only host directly communicate with an IPv4-only host or vice versa, and that simply isn't true. There is a lot more to it than that, including relay routers to translate the protocols, so, yes, the address space is still separate, but you have something that can talk in both protocols to do translation.

                      – Ron Maupin
                      Mar 24 at 15:03

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57903%2fare-the-ipv6-address-space-and-ipv4-address-space-completely-disjoint%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029