Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Google's QUIC
From: "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp () alvarezp ods org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:48:48 -0700

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:39:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Octavio Alvarez
<alvarezp () alvarezp ods org> wrote:

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.

I'm no genius, but doesn't the article say it's UDP? (in the name of
the protocol even)

I was trying to emphasize "replacement", not UDP. This is, that works on
the same layer, that requires OS-level modifications, as opposed to a
protocol that could be similar to UDP but work on the application layer.

My point was that all that work could be focused on a *really* good
transport (even with end-user multihoming without bloating the routing
table), and have streamlined TCP and UDP that takes advantage of the new
protocol.

Everyone's calling upon SCTP. Implementing similar techniques on multiple
transport protocols calls for a transport-session separation.

--
Octavio.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]