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.. why does it require OS modifications? isn't this just going be 'chrome' (or 'other application') asking for a udp socket and spewing line-rate-foo out of that? isn't the application going to be doing all of the multiplexing and jankiness?
I hope not. What would be the point of only letting one application take the benefit of all those improvements? "If we're able to identify clear performance wins, our hope is to collaborate with the rest of the community to develop the features and techniques of QUIC into network standards." So yes, QUIC itself doesn't require OS-level modifications, but letting stay there is pointless.
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 article.
Well, it runs on top of UDP, but it is NOT UDP. My guess is that UDP is needed just to work through NAT.
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? lisp? sham6?
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. :-)
table), and have streamlined TCP and UDP that takes advantage of the new protocol.
sure, ilnp?
ILNP is new for me. Looks interesting, thanks. -- Octavio.