4 ms·

this. Many people here seem to not realize that TCP is used for much more then just http/https. Quick might be nice for web traffic, but i see little reason t

this. Many people here seem to not realize that TCP is used for much more then just http/https. Quick might be nice for web traffic, but i see little reason to use it as an underlay for BGP for instance.

CameronNemo 7y ago
I have not thought much about how BGP would react to QUIC as transport, would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
- kazen44 7y ago
  for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in terms of migration. Im not entirely up to speed in terms of how quick would handle MSS size, but this could pose a problem in some situations.
  - fart_ratty 7y ago
    BGP not having security has caused many problems.
    - CameronNemo 7y ago
      BGP has some security. It's called rpki and the industry is slowly adopting it.
    - allarm 7y ago
      BGP over some new fancy transport protocol will cause way more problems.
      - CameronNemo 7y ago
        Practically? Yes it will cause all kinds of chaos. Theoretically? Depends on the transport and it's characteristics. There could be a theoretical gain to using something else.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    I imagine it would be fairly simple to teach a BGP implementation to use either TCP or QUIC, configurable per-session. Firewalls that dig deep into tcp packets sound like troublesome middleware with which good actors are in an arms, not something to go out of the way to support. I'll have to look into potential MSS issues.
jeltz 7y ago
And why would QUIC not work for other streaming protocols? the only possible disadvantages I can see is that it is a bit more complex and that it requires encryption. It does not in any way require HTTP.

CameronNemo 7y ago

I have not thought much about how BGP would react to QUIC as transport, would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

kazen44 7y ago
for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in terms of migration. Im not entirely up to speed in terms of how quick would handle MSS size, but this could pose a problem in some situations.
- fart_ratty 7y ago
  BGP not having security has caused many problems.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    BGP has some security. It's called rpki and the industry is slowly adopting it.
  - allarm 7y ago
    BGP over some new fancy transport protocol will cause way more problems.
    - CameronNemo 7y ago
      Practically? Yes it will cause all kinds of chaos. Theoretically? Depends on the transport and it's characteristics. There could be a theoretical gain to using something else.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  I imagine it would be fairly simple to teach a BGP implementation to use either TCP or QUIC, configurable per-session. Firewalls that dig deep into tcp packets sound like troublesome middleware with which good actors are in an arms, not something to go out of the way to support. I'll have to look into potential MSS issues.

jeltz 7y ago

And why would QUIC not work for other streaming protocols? the only possible disadvantages I can see is that it is a bit more complex and that it requires encryption. It does not in any way require HTTP.