3 ms·

But the whole point of QUIC is that it is a userspace implementation. From the QUIC viewpoint (and I take no sides in this) kernel implementation is death for a

by ris 8y ago

But the whole point of QUIC is that it is a userspace implementation. From the QUIC viewpoint (and I take no sides in this) kernel implementation is death for a protocol because it freezes its specification and behaviour in slow-to-update systems. This is why they found they couldn't "just improve TCP".

the8472 8y ago
There have been plenty of improvements to TCP over time. New congestion controllers, new extension headers, fast open, ECN, etc.
- netheril96 8y ago
  How long does each improvement achieve widespread adoption?
- ris 8y ago
  I'm not saying that they don't happen, but they are extremely slow to gain traction because of various things including OS support.
wpietri 8y ago
Is that death for a protocol? Or success? I get why Google, which controls a great deal of the software on both ends of a very large number of connections, finds a settled standard inconvenient. But from my perspective, as somebody who uses Google software but does a lot of other things too, I like when we have standards that are implemented by many different people and aren't controlled by a single vendor that is eager to maintain or extend their large market shares in many areas. Can that be slow to change? Sure. But the speed is proportional to how much the change benefits people besides Google. Personally, I hope that QUIC is a first step toward taking the lessons learned and implementing them widely, rather than something that will evolve at a rapid pace precisely as long as Google needs it to and then stop.
ldng 8y ago
That is called a standard. You want it to settle down.
josteink 8y ago
> kernel implementation is death for a protocol because it freezes its specification and behaviour in slow-to-update systems Maybe that’s a matter of opinion, but I consider that to be a feature. I want protocols to remain stable, and not be subject to whatever whims-of-the-month the fruity people at Google LLC comes up with.

by ris 8y ago

the8472 8y ago

There have been plenty of improvements to TCP over time. New congestion controllers, new extension headers, fast open, ECN, etc.

netheril96 8y ago
How long does each improvement achieve widespread adoption?
ris 8y ago
I'm not saying that they don't happen, but they are extremely slow to gain traction because of various things including OS support.

wpietri 8y ago

Is that death for a protocol? Or success? I get why Google, which controls a great deal of the software on both ends of a very large number of connections, finds a settled standard inconvenient. But from my perspective, as somebody who uses Google software but does a lot of other things too, I like when we have standards that are implemented by many different people and aren't controlled by a single vendor that is eager to maintain or extend their large market shares in many areas. Can that be slow to change? Sure. But the speed is proportional to how much the change benefits people besides Google. Personally, I hope that QUIC is a first step toward taking the lessons learned and implementing them widely, rather than something that will evolve at a rapid pace precisely as long as Google needs it to and then stop.

ldng 8y ago

That is called a standard. You want it to settle down.

josteink 8y ago

> kernel implementation is death for a protocol because it freezes its specification and behaviour in slow-to-update systems Maybe that’s a matter of opinion, but I consider that to be a feature. I want protocols to remain stable, and not be subject to whatever whims-of-the-month the fruity people at Google LLC comes up with.