Re: Misterhouse vendor id and uid range

[Gregg Liming <gregg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kevin Hawkins wrote:

> Hi,
>     AFAIK mhouse is fine - in fact I am not sure who is administering
> the allocations but I'm sure they'll speak up if it's not.
>
>     Within the current UID sizing we do not  allocate a range of UID's
> to a vendor, normally the UID value (or base UID value if you use
> several) is configurable in the application and it is left to the
> user/installer to choose such that there are no conflicts.

Thanks Kevin.  Currently, the UID is settable.  But, I'm pretty certain
that a very large majority of the users won't think to look or change it
if it were to conflict.  So, this leads me to the following questions:
1) Is there any recommended practice of selecting a default such that
there is some reasonably high likelihood of it not conflicting? The
current mh default is FF123400 which surely seem likely to be duplicated.
2) What "breaks" if there is a conflict? I know the current mh
xap logic
ignores UIDs of received messages--instead relying only on source.  BTW:
I did review a number of the threads re: discovery and directories and
therefore am aware of possible future directions; my immediate concern
is adopting any current best practices.
3) Should the app attempt to detect the possibility of conflicts (via
heartbeats of others) and adjust it dynamically or simply write out
errors or other suitable notification mechanism?

> You will
> only need 1 UID per 254 endpoints/devices of course although you may
> choose to use more.  If we do move to a longer UID - as we may - then
> part of the reasoning is exactly for this situation such that vendors
> have unique pools to work from and can even issue embedded UID's
rather
> like MAC addresses.
>