Google's QUIC

Sat Jun 29 03:00:17 UTC 2013

On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp at alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:

> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.

This is the main reason why I'm very supportive of this effort.  I'm a bit skeptical of what I have read so far, but I know that it's nearly impossible to tell how these things really work from theory and simulations.  Live, real world testing is required competing with all sorts of other flows.

Google with their hands in both things like www.google.com and Chrome is in an interesting position to implement server and client side of these implementations, and turn them on and off at will.  They can do the real world tests, tweak, report on them, and advance the state of the art.

So for now I'll reserve judgement on this particular protocol, while encouraging Google to do more of this sort of real world testing at the protocol level.

Now, how about an SCTP test? :)

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130628/4b6c536c/attachment.sig>