nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:40:30 -0700
On 06/28/2013 02:28 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 6/28/13 2:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:On 06/28/2013 02:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:----- Original Message -----From: "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they thinkSimple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did anyone ever actually implement that?No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_ProtocolSCTP is used successfully for the purpose for which it was intended, which is connecting SS7 switches over IP. It's not as much a posterchild for an application agnostic transport as some people would like to think.
Well, I'm pretty sure that Randy Stewart has a more expansive take on SCTP than SS7oIP, but I get the impression that there just weren't enough other things that cared about head of line blocking. But now, 15 years later, it seems like maybe there is. In any case, if what you're worried about is head of line blocking, SCTP definitely does that, and there are kernel implementations so for an *experiment* it seems like you could get a long way by ignoring its warts. But I think the most provocative thing is the idea of sending data payloads prior to handshake. That sort of scares me because of the potential for an amplification attack. But I haven't actually read the protocol paper itself. Mike
Current thread:
- Re: Google's QUIC, (continued)
- Re: Google's QUIC Leo Bicknell (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC cb.list6 (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Phil Fagan (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Phil Fagan (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC joel jaeggli (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Nikolay Shopik (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 28)