> For what it's worth, the UUID RFC actually has a provision for using random bits instead of the MAC address in a version 1 UUID [ref], which results in a similar, but incompatible structure as to what's proposed here.
> I'm not sure what this new, incompatible format buys over that one, other than a different allocation of bits between the time and random fields.
3 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 21.7 ms ] thread> For what it's worth, the UUID RFC actually has a provision for using random bits instead of the MAC address in a version 1 UUID [ref], which results in a similar, but incompatible structure as to what's proposed here.
> I'm not sure what this new, incompatible format buys over that one, other than a different allocation of bits between the time and random fields.
> [ref] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.5
niftich also gave an ASCII drawing of the bitfields in a ULID vs. UUIDv1.