3 ms·
If I were an ISP and the the network is congested, I would too drop UDP before TCP as UDP likely won't get resent. Customer service can play dump and say the i
by innocenat 8y ago
If I were an ISP and the the network is congested, I would too drop UDP before TCP as UDP likely won't get resent.
Customer service can play dump and say the internet (== WWW) is working fine. And since we customer usually don't have choice anyway.
- wmf 8y agoI would too drop UDP before TCP as UDP likely won't get resent. A great example of intuition going wrong. VoIP won't work at all during congestion even if it's not causing the congestion. If anything, dropping TCP before UDP is likely to be more helpful since TCP will back off. But now that uTP and QUIC exist, such L4 discrimination is probably just counterproductive.
- lomnakkus 8y agoI think you're missing the point that this is a type of ratchet in getting the intermediates to stop doing arbitrary traffic shaping/queueing/etc. (Ideally it would end up being a ratchet for net neutrality, but let's see...) A lot of Chrome traffic is already QUIC-based[1], and I think people will be pissed off it their experience is suddenly degraded because some asshole ISP decided to wholesale drop UDP over TCP. Regardless of any of that -- the only way forward for privacy is end-to-end encryption and QUIC helps achieve that, up to "secret key availability"[2]. [1] I think Firefox is also experimenting with it? [2] That is, any entity serving you a page must have the right secret keys. This is basically the case with SSL-only web sites already.