mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:20:21 -0400
On Jun 28, 2013 6:24 PM, "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp () alvarezp ods org>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:57:48 -0700, Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
again... not a super smart on this stuff, but..
protocol that could be similar to UDP but work on the application layer.
it's not 'similar to UDP', it is in fact UDP, from what I read in the
Well, it runs on top of UDP, but it is NOT UDP. My guess is that UDP is
needed just to work through NAT.
"Runs in top of UDP"... "Is not UDP"...
If it has protocol set to 17 it is UDP.
My point was that all that work could be focused on a *really* good
transport (even with end-user multihoming without bloating the routing
how's that sctp going for you?
That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
Neither of the three are widely implemented. That said, neither of those
enable full path resiliency. Path resiliency requires the end-point to be
available through different paths and being able to detect those paths
*before* the first connection is established.
SCTP is not NAT friendly (to the best of my knowledge), SHIM6 is
IPv6-specific and can help you "recover" an already successful connection.
LISP... I can't still grasp LISP, although it doesn't have anything to do
with multihoming. :-)
Lisp is actually very much about multihoming... In fact that was one of the
key reasons it got started. It actually could make multihoming and mobility
very much simpler at the applications if it were used.
It is a bit complex though... At least for normal ivp4/6 routing minded
table), and have streamlined TCP and UDP that takes advantage of the new
ILNP is new for me. Looks interesting, thanks.
Mind that ilnp is v6only also requires stack changes...