3 ms·
The protocol is quite complex, unfortunately, and also in flux, which deters a lot of companies from adopting it in their supported solutions. There is also th
by dsign 9y ago
The protocol is quite complex, unfortunately, and also in flux, which deters a lot of companies from adopting it in their supported solutions.
There is also the issue of HTTP/2 ... just because the major open source servers have implementations for it, it doesn't mean that it has been assimilated to its full capabilities in hundreds of other stacks. For many organizations, it's hard to sell internally the adoption of yet another protocol in such a short timeframe.
- baby 9y agoYou're also using a protocol that changes at every version of Chrome, making you only compatible with the last version of Chrome if you're keeping up to date, or with multiple versions if you're willing to do that to your code. Chrome is also only talking QUIC to Google websites, not sure how you would go about making it work with other websites (ask the G maybe?)
- londons_explore 9y agoChrome will talk QUIC to anyone else who talks QUIC
- hawski 9y agoHow does Chrome determine that a service supports QUIC? Does QUIC use a specific port and Chrome always pings it?
- dweekly 9y agoEmit an HTTP header and Chrome will attempt a QUIC connection. Alternate-Protocol: quic:<QUIC server port> https://www.chromium.org/quic/quic-faq https://www.chromium.org/quic/quic-faq
- baby 9y agoDo you need to serve that over HTTPS? EDIT: Alright, I figured it out, this page is out of date. Google services reply with this header which works: alt-svc: hq=":443"; ma=2592000; quic=51303431; quic=51303339; quic=51303338; quic=51303337; quic=51303335,quic=":443"; ma=2592000; v="41,39,38,37,35" No idea what these quic values are :) but here it is.
- detaro 9y agoWait until the IETF-version is finished and build on that? (it's a bit confusing it is named the same, since it is not just a version of Google's)
- baby 9y agoit'll either NOT happen, or if it does it will probably be in ages.
- detaro 9y agoThat's to bad. Last I heard of it (which admittedly has been a while) it seemed like they made useful progress.
- lclarkmichalek 9y agoI don't think that's true. There's a lot of momentum in the space, and several large vendors have IETF-quic implementations that are pretty interoperable already.