[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google's QUIC
- Subject: Google's QUIC
- From: alvarezp at alvarezp.ods.org (Octavio Alvarez)
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:26:10 -0700
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:09:43 -0700, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
>
> Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side
> but since
> it's Google, it will almost certainly affect the ops side eventually.
>
> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
> that middle
> boxen/firewalls make it problematic. That may be, but UDP based port
> filtering is
> probably not far behind on the flaky front.
Sounds like a UDP replacement. If this is true, then OS-level support will
be needed. If they are on this, then it's the perfect opportunity to fix
some other problems with the Internet in general.
My reaction is: why, oh why, repeat the same mistake of merging everything
on the transport layer and let the benefits be protocol-specific instead
of separating the "transport" from "session".
I mean, why not let redundancy and multipath stay on the transport layer
through some kind of end-user transport (like the Host Identification
Protocol, RFC 5201) and let a simpler TCP and UDP live on top of that, on
the session layer.
Streamline the protocols and separate their functionality.
It's easier than it sounds.
--
Octavio.
- Follow-Ups:
- Google's QUIC
- From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)