# \#1016: Option to extend uids to 128 bit

**URL:** <https://community.zeek.org/t/1016-option-to-extend-uids-to-128-bit/2701>\
**Category:** Development\
**Tags:** development\
**Created:** [June 10, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/1016-option-to-extend-uids-to-128-bit/2701 "2013-06-10T14:51:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robin](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/community.zeek.org/robin/32/599_2.png) [@robin](https://community.zeek.org/u/robin)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/1016-option-to-extend-uids-to-128-bit/2701/1 "2013-06-10T14:51:59Z")

</div>

> I've been thinking about this one. So, I can understand the desire to move  
> off of 64-bit UIDs, but I don't understand the immediate jump to 128-bit.

That was my initial thought too when seeing the ticket: why not find  
some middle-ground (except that I didn't do the math 🙂

> While poking around on this, it seems like current implementation could be  
> more efficient. Specifically:

(It's not great, but I don't think this should have much of a  
performance impact.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/zeek/original/1X/f09d732bc2cc7c7cc7e35db67cf4e1d5233ce7a7.png) [@system](https://community.zeek.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [May 6, 2022, 3:41pm UTC](https://community.zeek.org/t/1016-option-to-extend-uids-to-128-bit/2701/2 "2022-05-06T15:41:01Z")

</div>