[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google's QUIC
- Subject: Google's QUIC
- From: philfagan at gmail.com (Phil Fagan)
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:02:47 -0600
- In-reply-to: <CAL9jLaZLKSJQmodvtq3XebRan-Vp-RCrX3w=sCB7c=eTHUBr1g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <op.wzeodwxt4oyyg1@alvarezp-ws> <CAL9jLaYJ=Aa8kLFGorbh1wZpVdSR4Wsmb7XdBR8BP8cM1RcvTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPhg-wTi7d7S1_ATj-iuR-g2FYAi8oqnBTaAS1UEsL3chAM+Yw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZLKSJQmodvtq3XebRan-Vp-RCrX3w=sCB7c=eTHUBr1g@mail.gmail.com>
I took that as path agnostic.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com
> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has
> the
> > potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a
> client,
> > to be served on a single server." - Google
> >
> > I'll drink the juice
>
> i don't think much juice is required... doesn't that just say that the
> same 'flow' will follow the same path through the network? and that
> most/all (save a10/yahoo!) loadbalancers just LB based on 5-tuple (at
> best)? so keeping things in a single flow/stream/5-tuple will drop
> packets from one host deterministicaly on a single other host at the
> far side?
>
--
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618