RE: uuid

Where this fails is when you send/receive files with UUID's from another
company that overridden the default adapter address to be the same as your
overridden adapter address.  Having overridden adapter address for ease of
SNA networking, before *anynet was viable, I can see this happening.
Especially when I used the examples right out of the manuals.  How many on
this list used "420000000010"?


Christopher K. Bipes      mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com
Operations & Network Mgr  mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com
CrossCheck, Inc.                  http://www.cross-check.com
6119 State Farm Drive     Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102
Rohnert Park CA  94928    Fax: 707 586-1884

-----Original Message-----
From: thomas@inorbit.com [mailto:thomas@inorbit.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 7:44 PM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: uuid


Brendan:

On Tue, 05 February 2002, Brendan Bispham wrote:

> Is the uuid affected by changing the ethernet local adaptor address? the
> reason I ask is I expect many adaptor addresses to have been changed to a
> common reverse-address like 00020000007 or something like that (remember
> them? - back when token ring was strategic)... so making uuid effectively
> useless..

'Useless' in what way? It should still be a 'unique identifier' which is its
fundamental purpose. I guess I could imagine a small troublesome time window
where two systems could be rapidly blasting out uuids concurrently during
the time where adaptor addresses changed in such a way that the address of
one briefly duplicated the address of the other and the two clocks were far
enough out of sync; but a change of adaptor address implies possibly ending
and restarting many services anyway and that can imply ending and restarting
numerous applications.