Google's QUIC

Sat Jun 29 00:20:21 UTC 2013

On Jun 28, 2013 6:24 PM, "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp at alvarezp.ods.org>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:57:48 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> again... not a super smart on this stuff, but..
>>
>>> protocol that could be similar to UDP but work on the application layer.
>>
>>
>> it's not 'similar to UDP', it is in fact UDP, from what I read in the
article.
>
>
> Well, it runs on top of UDP, but it is NOT UDP. My guess is that UDP is
> needed just to work through NAT.
>
>

"Runs in top of UDP"... "Is not UDP"...

If it has protocol set to 17 it is UDP.

>>> My point was that all that work could be focused on a *really* good
>>> transport (even with end-user multihoming without bloating the routing
>>
>>
>> how's that sctp going for you?
>> lisp?
>> sham6?
>
>
> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
>
> Neither of the three are widely implemented. That said, neither of those
> enable full path resiliency. Path resiliency requires the end-point to be
> available through different paths and being able to detect those paths
> *before* the first connection is established.
>
> SCTP is not NAT friendly (to the best of my knowledge), SHIM6 is
> IPv6-specific and can help you "recover" an already successful connection.
> LISP... I can't still grasp LISP, although it doesn't have anything to do
> with multihoming. :-)
>

Lisp is actually very much about multihoming... In fact that was one of the
key reasons it got started. It actually could make multihoming and mobility
very much simpler at the applications if it were used.

It is a bit complex though... At least for normal ivp4/6 routing minded
folk.

>
>>> table), and have streamlined TCP and UDP that takes advantage of the new
>>> protocol.
>>
>>
>> sure, ilnp?
>
>
> ILNP is new for me. Looks interesting, thanks.

Mind that ilnp is v6only also requires stack changes...