[164181] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Google's QUIC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Fagan)
Fri Jun 28 17:08:02 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZLKSJQmodvtq3XebRan-Vp-RCrX3w=sCB7c=eTHUBr1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phil Fagan <philfagan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:02:47 -0600
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I took that as path agnostic.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has
> the
> > potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a
> client,
> > to be served on a single server." - Google
> >
> > I'll drink the juice
>
> i don't think much juice is required... doesn't that just say that the
> same 'flow' will follow the same path through the network? and that
> most/all (save a10/yahoo!) loadbalancers just LB based on 5-tuple (at
> best)? so keeping things in a single flow/stream/5-tuple will drop
> packets from one host deterministicaly on a single other host at the
> far side?
>
--
Phil Fagan
Denver, CO
970-480-7618
