nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:15:14 +0300
On (2013-06-29 23:36 +0100), Tony Finch wrote:
Reminds me of MinimaLT: http://cr.yp.to/tcpip/minimalt-20130522.pdf
ACK. Any cryptobased 0 RTT will necessarily have many things similar, and indeed crypto is the key for low latency without major attack vectors. But MinimaLT does not support multiplexing, which seems to be critical design goal for QUIC. I wonder how many years until this work materializes in practical NGL4, 10? I'd really hate the final solution to be something riding on top of UDP, because changing stuff is too hard. Or should L4 be just 32b (16b SPORT, 16b DPORT) and L5 headers where magic should live? -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: Google's QUIC, (continued)
- 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 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)
- Re: Google's QUIC Phil Fagan (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 28)