nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:27:48 -0400
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz () janoszka pl> wrote:
I am surprised nobody mentioned security issues. To minimize latency the following would be best: the client sends one UDP packet and receives stream of UDP packets with page code, styles, images and whatever else could be needed. The waiting time is just RTT plus browser processing. I am sure Google considered it, so I am really curious how they are going to solve it.
Of course they consider this. Read the "CONNECTION ESTABLISHMENT and RESUMPTION" section of their design document [1]. If you're familiar with TCP Fast Open, many of its techniques are reused. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/edit -- Darius Jahandarie
Current thread:
- Re: Google's QUIC, (continued)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Octavio Alvarez (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Octavio Alvarez (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Octavio Alvarez (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC shawn wilson (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Grzegorz Janoszka (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Darius Jahandarie (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Tony Finch (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 30)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 30)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Jim Popovitch (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Octavio Alvarez (Jun 29)
- 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)