[Asterisk-Dev] dev conf topic: better CDRs

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Wednesday 23 February 2005 20:13, Michael Giagnocavo wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> bounces at lists.digium.com] 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