-----Original Message----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tilghman Lesher >That's lovely, but MD5 is not guaranteed to be unique (and it wasn't >designed to be unique, only to be a cryptographic hash), given a set of >inputs. Over time, the probability of a collision increases.
That's right. MD5 should not be used where a unique key is needed. >Currently, we have a 2 integer method, which is guaranteed to be >machine-unique: unixtime and instance increment, which, as long as >the daemon isn't constantly restarting, is fine. To add network >uniqueness, the addition of a third integer should be sufficient: the >32-bit integer representation of the IP address. Oddly, that's 96 bits, >32 less than MD5, yet it's guaranteed to be unique for at least the next >30 years. What's wrong with using a GUID? -Michael _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
