tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post2929434204158904685..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: Some notes about HTTP/3David Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-28657912587995767692020-11-09T19:42:36.826-05:002020-11-09T19:42:36.826-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.felisha greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448582896725355815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-82237928909509906272020-11-09T19:42:10.172-05:002020-11-09T19:42:10.172-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.felisha greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448582896725355815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-89797368824528209352018-11-26T11:38:19.366-05:002018-11-26T11:38:19.366-05:00QUIC integrates TLS 1.3 as of now :) QUIC integrates TLS 1.3 as of now :) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03751259507440414712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-81171405011516788602018-11-26T10:14:42.698-05:002018-11-26T10:14:42.698-05:00Foremost, HTTP/3 is not QUIC. More to relate as th...Foremost, HTTP/3 is not QUIC. More to relate as the transport of HTTP over QUIC. And for the second part of your question, QUIC was developed with the mindset to improve such streaming and protocol experience with lower overhead as of UDP rather than TCP. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03751259507440414712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-28072649971714770262018-11-23T19:24:57.058-05:002018-11-23T19:24:57.058-05:00@Fazal Majid BBR does use more bandwidth more effi...@Fazal Majid BBR does use more bandwidth more efficiently without the spiky drops that other TCP congestion algorithms end up with. They tend to see a packet drop and panic, while BBR knows the effective pipe size is not likely to change that dramatically so it adjusts at a slower rate.<br /><br />But Google and others have done extensive testing of BBR and it does share mostly fairly with other TCP types. With other BBR flows it is fair. Using all BBR everywhere would not overload the Internet.Zan Lynxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17837281633089631019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-70793290664905248562018-11-23T16:08:08.241-05:002018-11-23T16:08:08.241-05:00Does using a connection identifier rather than soc...Does using a connection identifier rather than sockets mean it's possible for a single stream to saturate 2 network gateways of a device?<br /><br />Eg. Say you have 2 internet connections on your network or device. With tcp, connections persist over the gateway they were established through. What's stopping QUIC from using both simultaneously?Robert Kingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762764923383457408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-26966106121204332682018-11-23T15:24:25.177-05:002018-11-23T15:24:25.177-05:00@TheThagenesis Just because you can't envision...@TheThagenesis Just because you can't envision what problems it solves, it doesn't mean it doesn't solve anything.<br /><br />For example what about the packet loss that easily happens using WiFi/cell? Using TCP, packet loss could significantly slow down transfer since it needs to stop and wait for the dropped packets. It will also cause you and the server to think you are transferring too much (congestion) when it isn't the case, so packets will be sent more slowly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514930851227707019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-13311665024172482762018-11-23T14:43:14.538-05:002018-11-23T14:43:14.538-05:00Quic solves problems that do not exist. the need f...Quic solves problems that do not exist. the need for multiplexing is there if you need a lot of content from the same server but HTTP pipelining already exists and reality of the Internet nowadays is that sites load a ton of external resources from somewhere else. ads, trackers, Javascript libraries, Facebook buttons, you name it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17119268104941260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-15382705573259599192018-11-23T13:45:10.700-05:002018-11-23T13:45:10.700-05:00"Why call it TCP/2?" Because whoever wro..."Why call it TCP/2?" Because whoever wrote this post likes to be misleading.<br /><br />There's nothing new about reimplementing TCP on top of UDP and it's what many applications have done for a long time. VoIP does some of it (f.e. SIP reimplements the whole shebang for "control" packets - with ACKs and sequence numbers and so forth - but drops down to bare UDP for actual call data). Games generally have sequences and ACKs (or repeat-backs) for at least some operations.<br /><br /><br />Also, UDP makes you <b>much</b> more likely to run into NAT issues, particularly with longer-lived conversations which may outlast the state table entry on the router. This is why games, VoIP, etc so frequently have issues with NAT. However I don't expect that to really matter with QUIC given that the conversation will likely be forgotten by the server long before your NAT device.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086471401891027798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-27847149304163660372018-11-23T12:21:38.385-05:002018-11-23T12:21:38.385-05:00So this is HTTP over UDP with a subset of TCP'...So this is HTTP over UDP with a subset of TCP's features like guarantee of delivery etc? If so why call it TCP/2?user9438https://www.blogger.com/profile/12458700489473832502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-68120575677090716762018-11-20T15:20:04.127-05:002018-11-20T15:20:04.127-05:00if it uses UDP why is it mentioned as TCP/3 & ...if it uses UDP why is it mentioned as TCP/3 & not HTTP over UDP?Nithinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10219480095856068717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-7930455768085961782018-11-20T08:42:14.762-05:002018-11-20T08:42:14.762-05:00To several commenters: QUIC uses UDP, which is alr...To several commenters: QUIC uses UDP, which is already used in gaming and VoIP streaming. UDP has no delivery guarantees, it's fire-and-forget. QUIC adds delivery guarantees, but this is often not needed in the aforementioned scenarios, where real-time is more important. E.g. a lost packet is already stale when using VoIP or gaming.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04903951297435560295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-46627337705661719052018-11-19T19:44:20.755-05:002018-11-19T19:44:20.755-05:00Quic or http/3 along with PIMv2 and IPv6's end...Quic or http/3 along with PIMv2 and IPv6's end-to-end model would contribute significantly improve 1-to-many and many-to-many audio, video, and VR distribution. Just saying.Joe Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17132575668974268183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-27197029696231794672018-11-19T16:49:12.300-05:002018-11-19T16:49:12.300-05:00The problem is fairness in the presence of network...The problem is fairness in the presence of network congestion. To a large extent it depends on most TCP implementations using the same congestion control algorithm, or at least algorithms that have the same general behavior. Google's developed a new algorithm called BBR that is robust, but also unfair. When a TCP connection implementing the NewReno algorithm shares a congested link with another one implementing BBR, the BBR grabs the lion's share of the bandwidth:<br /><br />https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/10-2018-05-15-bbr.pdf<br /><br />QUIC specifies NewReno as default and mentions CUBIC, but the choice of algorithm is left to the implementation. I can easily envision Google using BBR for connections between Chrome and Google properties, which means Google traffic would be prioritized over competitors'. Over time, more players would implement BBR in a race to the bottom (or a tragedy of the commons) and Internet brown-outs as in the 1980s and 1990s would come back.Fazal Majidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11835052457887138059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-35020942818341381282018-11-19T09:45:04.925-05:002018-11-19T09:45:04.925-05:00And two others:
"to manage it's own stre...And two others:<br /><br />"to manage it's own stream of UDP" -><br />"to manage its own stream of UDP"<br /><br />"so it's innovations are driven" -><br />"so its innovations are driven"Sudsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005665577735911530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-73672161393553877402018-11-19T09:41:18.456-05:002018-11-19T09:41:18.456-05:00Minor typo:
"giving each core it's own n...Minor typo:<br /><br />"giving each core it's own non-shared packet queue." -><br />"giving each core its own non-shared packet queue."Sudsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005665577735911530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-42580121986394960292018-11-19T09:33:26.856-05:002018-11-19T09:33:26.856-05:00I agree with Tiwy... seems that using QUIC as an a...I agree with Tiwy... seems that using QUIC as an alternative to TCP or UDP would have value in other spaces such as VoIP calling from cell phones, specifically during the transition between networks / network types, such as LTE to WiFi... aside from the implementation, is there something i'm missing in my understanding of the opportunity?Scott Brickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10400574202153312047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-79097465997967738952018-11-19T08:10:51.103-05:002018-11-19T08:10:51.103-05:00@Tiwy Google already uses streaming (WebRTC) over ...@Tiwy Google already uses streaming (WebRTC) over QUIC for their Duo product.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775154790115292045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-55909561450521030102018-11-19T07:16:59.214-05:002018-11-19T07:16:59.214-05:00How does QUIC work when the client is behind firew...How does QUIC work when the client is behind firewalls or IP translation gateways?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694180507018463801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-43838093573078683152018-11-19T05:36:41.193-05:002018-11-19T05:36:41.193-05:00How does the security look?How does the security look?sataihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305642485529531748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-20494118302210569822018-11-19T05:19:21.989-05:002018-11-19T05:19:21.989-05:00Just a question: if QUIC is more TCP/3 than HTTP/3...Just a question: if QUIC is more TCP/3 than HTTP/3, could it be used for other purposes? For example multiplayer games, IoT protocols, streaming and such? Does it have to include the HTTP path, headers and body structure?aljaz erzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17923886934028519817noreply@blogger.com