Re: Google's QUIC

["cb.list6" <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp () 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.

+1, Google is smart for doing this.  It is important to push the
boundaries on performance.

QUIC is UDP, and UDP is the right step for now.

And, hopefully this stuff gets rolled up into ILNP stack features.
Yes ILNP needs stack changes, think big.  Not all things can NOT be a
simple incremental tweaks.  ILNP will be a revolution.  QUIC is simply
a revolt on performance issues with TCP in today's low-loss, high
latency (mobile), and middle box encumbered networks.

CB

> Now, how about an SCTP test? :)
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/