On Wednesday 23 February 2005 20:13, Michael Giagnocavo wrote: > -----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?
Formulated how? I just explained how you could formulate one, which should be sufficient for an enterprising soul to code (even if that enterprising soul is me). -- Tilghman _______________________________________________ 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
