[164178] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Google's QUIC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou)
Fri Jun 28 16:58:06 2013
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:57:32 +0300
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMcDhon5mcj+GoPcn8buaQtjAYmcPCcWnW3XSKqJv_0TizQCZw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The idea reminds me of uTP in terms of congestion handling.
--
Tassos
Josh Hoppes wrote on 28/6/2013 23:16:
> My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
> congesting links?
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
>>
>> Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side but
>> since
>> it's Google, it will almost certainly affect the ops side eventually.
>>
>> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think that
>> middle
>> boxen/firewalls make it problematic. That may be, but UDP based port
>> filtering is
>> probably not far behind on the flaky front.
>>
>> The second justification was TLS layering inefficiencies. That definitely
>> has my
>> sympathies as TLS (especially cert exchange) is bloated and the way that it
>> was
>> grafted onto TCP wasn't exactly the most elegant. Interestingly enough,
>> their
>> main justification wasn't a security concern so much as "helpful" middle
>> boxen
>> getting their filthy mitts on the traffic and screwing it up.
>>
>> The last thing that occurs to me reading their FAQ is that they are
>> seemingly trying
>> to send data with 0 round trips. That is, SYN, data, data, data... That
>> really makes me
>> wonder about security/dos considerations. As in, it sounds too good to be
>> true. But
>> maybe that's just the security cruft? But what about SYN cookies/dos? Hmmm.
>>
>> Other comments or clue?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
