mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp () alvarezp ods org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:26:10 -0700
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:09:43 -0700, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side
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
boxen/firewalls make it problematic. That may be, but UDP based port
probably not far behind on the flaky front.
Sounds like a UDP replacement. If this is true, then OS-level support will
be needed. If they are on this, then it's the perfect opportunity to fix
some other problems with the Internet in general.
My reaction is: why, oh why, repeat the same mistake of merging everything
on the transport layer and let the benefits be protocol-specific instead
of separating the "transport" from "session".
I mean, why not let redundancy and multipath stay on the transport layer
through some kind of end-user transport (like the Host Identification
Protocol, RFC 5201) and let a simpler TCP and UDP live on top of that, on
the session layer.
Streamline the protocols and separate their functionality.
It's easier than it sounds.