# What type of addressing does Tony Stark use in Iron Man 3?

In the Iron Man 3 movie, when Stark uses the News Van to access the Internet, he is shown using an IP address which is not consistent with our real world standards. Screenshot:

Click image for full resolution

From my calculations the maximum number of bits required would be 10+10+6+4=30 (assuming that the last address is 999.999.99.9). We use 32 bit IPv4 addresses (max 255.255.255.255). So my question is,

• Is it shown like this in this movie only to distinguish Marvel Universe with our Universe ?
• or Is there some other standard mentioned else where in any of the Comics, Cinema or TV Episode?
• I think when movies or series shows something related to coding, I already assume that it's just a hype and it's wrong. Like sort of a Easter egg for us programmers to find. Like this on a show called arrow. It's just a for loop statement. imgur.com/qpkrwWn Aug 29, 2013 at 9:21
• You could try calculating for IPv6 though. Aug 29, 2013 at 9:28
• Its also not valid for IPv6, and the shortlived IPv5 used the same addressing as IPv4. Out of universe i'd guess they didn't want to use a real IP just in case someone decided that DOSing it would be fun Aug 29, 2013 at 9:52
• Thanks for making my point. Aug 29, 2013 at 15:50

There's a lot of real world history that shows the truth of a simple fact: if you put a real address or phone number on screen, someone will try to go there or call it, with irritating consequences for whomever lives there or has that number.

This is, for example, why phone numbers on American television are always 555-xxxx.

Similarly, IP addresses on screen tend to be technically invalid, usually by having one of the fields out of range; this is what I think we're seeing here ... IP4 movie style.

• 867-5309 anyone? Aug 29, 2013 at 11:54
• The best IP address they could use would be 127.0.0.1, instead of some made up value. It looks real because it is, and if there is any idiot hacker out there who doesn't know what it is will be in for a fun surprise when they try to do something to it. Aug 29, 2013 at 13:01
• @Xantec And for those recognizing a loopback address, it would have meant that Tony Stark is running the WHOLE Internet on this computer... IN A VAN! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS! Aug 29, 2013 at 13:11
• @Xantec 127.0.0.1 looks likely familiar to any geek, and geeks are among the target audience of the movie. A better choice would be an address from those blocks reserved for documentation and examples, namely 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24 and 203.0.113.0/24. Aug 29, 2013 at 14:11
• @Philipp any address from 127.0.0.1 to 127.255.255.254 will go to loopback (i.e. 127.123.123.123). They could use any number there, not many geeks would recognize 127.343.131.343 as being loopback. Aug 29, 2013 at 15:13

934.554.32.3, if the periods are replaced with semicolons, so 934:554:32:3:: becomes a valid IPv6 protocol address. (Also note: IPv6 is 4 digits in hexidecimal, and leading zeroes in each place may be omitted. Further, up to 8 such groups may be used.)

Note that 934:554:32:3:: is a valid but unassigned address at present.

depends on the subnet mask on the network he was logged onto (through which he might have gained access to the internet), if you look you'll see a button that says "new subnet", if the subnet mask is changed to have different bits assigned to different portions of the address you might could make it fit

a 32 bit ip (127.0.0.1) would be read as 01111111 00000000 00000000 00000001

with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.255 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111

if you change one bit using a different subnet mask-

with a subnet mask of 511.127.255.255 111111111 1111111 11111111 11111111

you can have an ip of 412.101.182.205 110011100 1100101 10110110 11001101

you can increase the range of some numbers and restrict others

so if we change the mask again

with a subnet mask of 1023.1023.64.64 1111111111 1111111111 111111 111111

924.554.32.3 is possible 1110011100 1000101010 100000 000011

• Masking cannot add more bits nor change which octet they belong to. The explanation here is not technically valid. Dec 7, 2014 at 4:03