Google's QUIC

Fri Jun 28 22:05:14 UTC 2013

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Van is at Google.  Much grokking is going on.

-Scott

>
> https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1lmL9EF6qKrk7gbazY8bIdvq3Pno2X**
> j_l_YShP40GLQE/preview?sle=**true#heading=h.h3jsxme7rovm<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<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
>>>
>>>
>
>