Google's QUIC

Fri Jun 28 20:23:53 UTC 2013

On 06/28/2013 01:16 PM, Josh Hoppes wrote:
> My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
> congesting links?

The FAQ claims they're paying attention to that, but I haven't read the
details. I sure hope they grok that not understanding Van Jacobson dooms
you to repeat it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmL9EF6qKrk7gbazY8bIdvq3Pno2Xj_l_YShP40GLQE/preview?sle=true#heading=h.h3jsxme7rovm

Mike

>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, 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.
>>
>> The second justification was TLS layering inefficiencies. That definitely
>> has my
>> sympathies as TLS (especially cert exchange) is bloated and the way that it
>> was
>> grafted onto TCP wasn't exactly the most elegant. Interestingly enough,
>> their
>> main justification wasn't a security concern so much as "helpful" middle
>> boxen
>> getting their filthy mitts on the traffic and screwing it up.
>>
>> The last thing that occurs to me reading their FAQ is that they are
>> seemingly trying
>> to send data with 0 round trips. That is, SYN, data, data, data... That
>> really makes me
>> wonder about security/dos considerations. As in, it sounds too good to be
>> true. But
>> maybe that's just the security cruft? But what about SYN cookies/dos? Hmmm.
>>
>> Other comments or clue?
>>
>> Mike
>>