On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 06/28/2013 01:16 PM, Josh Hoppes wrote:
My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from congesting links?
The FAQ claims they're paying attention to that, but I haven't read the details. I sure hope they grok that not understanding Van Jacobson dooms you to repeat it.
Van is at Google. Much grokking is going on. -Scott
https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1lmL9EF6qKrk7gbazY8bIdvq3Pno2X** j_l_YShP40GLQE/preview?sle=**true#heading=h.h3jsxme7rovm<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmL9EF6qKrk7gbazY8bIdvq3Pno2Xj_l_YShP40GLQE/preview?sle=true#heading=h.h3jsxme7rovm>
Mike
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/**information-technology/2013/** 06/google-making-the-web-**faster-with-protocol-that-** reduces-round-trips/?comments=**1<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1>
Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side but since 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 that middle boxen/firewalls make it problematic. That may be, but UDP based port filtering is probably not far behind on the flaky front.
The second justification was TLS layering inefficiencies. That definitely has my sympathies as TLS (especially cert exchange) is bloated and the way that it was grafted onto TCP wasn't exactly the most elegant. Interestingly enough, their main justification wasn't a security concern so much as "helpful" middle boxen getting their filthy mitts on the traffic and screwing it up.
The last thing that occurs to me reading their FAQ is that they are seemingly trying to send data with 0 round trips. That is, SYN, data, data, data... That really makes me wonder about security/dos considerations. As in, it sounds too good to be true. But maybe that's just the security cruft? But what about SYN cookies/dos? Hmmm.
Other comments or clue?
Mike