old ids should simply not be used because of the confusion that could create, altough the different LFSRs produce completely different values for the same advance value. adding 32 to your old value is reasonable given the small probability that one would be using his old value for the lfsr2 and had a value right after yours initially (this is not the case with anyone reporting status). Many simply cliked on the link expecting to read more instructions i guess. if you request a completely new value this is fine too, there are at least 2^58.9 left.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:20:37PM +0100, Terje Sannum wrote: > [Sascha Krissler <[email protected]>] > > Also, while it is technically possible to use the same --advance > > for the new table, it will just complicate matters with 2 different > > tables using the same value and they are nothing less: 2 totally > > different tables. So again i recommend you add 32 to the --advance > > of the LFSR. > > I'm not very into how A5/1 works, so I must ask one question: > Is there a reason for your suggestion on adding 32 to the advance > parameter rather than getting a new unique value? > > -Terje _______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
