6 ms·

You realize that HTTP/2 is still nowhere near to being adopted by corporations? It's really far fetched to plan HTTP/3 and expect any adoption.

cryptonector 6y ago
The fact that UDP involves much smaller PCBs than TCP alone will drive adoption of HTTP/3 because it will free up a fair bit of memory. More availability of HTTP version gateways in load balancers and other reverse proxies is all that's needed, and that's coming along.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  More specifically no PCB, for UDP itself.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    It's not nil. For "connected" UDP sockets, it's smaller than TCP's, but not nil because, well, buffers. And for non-connected UDP sockets there's still buffers. The main thing is that you can have much less buffer space because you might always be willing to drop packets. Ultimately you can have much lower memory pressure from those buffers and the smaller PCBs.
- moreati 6y ago
  Protocol Control Block for anyone else wondering https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/tcpip-illustrated/020163354X/ch22.html https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/tcpip-illustrated/02016...
- the8472 6y ago
  You still need to keep your unacknowledged data buffered somewhere. If the kernel isn't holding it then it's in userspace.
tialaramex 6y ago
Qualys' "SSL Pulse" says 47.1% of surveyed sites offered HTTP/2 and about 30% of surveyed sites offer TLS 1.3 Increasingly "corporations" out-source this problem to specialists who are only too pleased to use newer technologies with better performance and collect the same money.
- user5994461 6y ago
  Because 47% of sites run on Cloudflare or similar CDN that started enabling HTTP/2 for non-paying customers. The application servers running the site do not accept HTTP/2 and most likely can't support it at all (we're a python shop and none of the web frameworks we use could do HTTP/2 when we looked into it).
  - amaccuish 6y ago
    For HTTP/2 at least, I think the main benefit in terms of performance applies to the "last hop", so you still get a more reliable experience even if the connection between the CDN/proxy and app server is http/1.1
    - dathinab 6y ago
      True, through many web-sites don't have to care about the performance difference. But for companies like CloudFlare or Googl HTTP/2 means less traffic overhead (multiplexing+header compression) and can save them a lot of bandwidth (aka. money) with that.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    But exactly that's the point. It can be handled transparently in a much easier way then the Ipv6 switch. (Because IPv6 is so much more different then just IPv4 + more addresses, and worse, many people don't realize it and treat it as IPv4 with more addresses which resulted in many problems).
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    Exactly. AWS and GCP load balancers accept HTTP/2 but allow for those requests to be forward to backend instances as HTTP/1 because of this.
uluyol 6y ago
Most _domains_ may not support HTTP/3, but I fully expect that within a few years most _traffic_ will be HTTP/3.

cryptonector 6y ago

The fact that UDP involves much smaller PCBs than TCP alone will drive adoption of HTTP/3 because it will free up a fair bit of memory. More availability of HTTP version gateways in load balancers and other reverse proxies is all that's needed, and that's coming along.

microcolonel 6y ago
More specifically no PCB, for UDP itself.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  It's not nil. For "connected" UDP sockets, it's smaller than TCP's, but not nil because, well, buffers. And for non-connected UDP sockets there's still buffers. The main thing is that you can have much less buffer space because you might always be willing to drop packets. Ultimately you can have much lower memory pressure from those buffers and the smaller PCBs.
moreati 6y ago
Protocol Control Block for anyone else wondering https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/tcpip-illustrated/020163354X/ch22.html https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/tcpip-illustrated/02016...
the8472 6y ago
You still need to keep your unacknowledged data buffered somewhere. If the kernel isn't holding it then it's in userspace.

tialaramex 6y ago

Qualys' "SSL Pulse" says 47.1% of surveyed sites offered HTTP/2 and about 30% of surveyed sites offer TLS 1.3 Increasingly "corporations" out-source this problem to specialists who are only too pleased to use newer technologies with better performance and collect the same money.

user5994461 6y ago
Because 47% of sites run on Cloudflare or similar CDN that started enabling HTTP/2 for non-paying customers. The application servers running the site do not accept HTTP/2 and most likely can't support it at all (we're a python shop and none of the web frameworks we use could do HTTP/2 when we looked into it).
- amaccuish 6y ago
  For HTTP/2 at least, I think the main benefit in terms of performance applies to the "last hop", so you still get a more reliable experience even if the connection between the CDN/proxy and app server is http/1.1
  - dathinab 6y ago
    True, through many web-sites don't have to care about the performance difference. But for companies like CloudFlare or Googl HTTP/2 means less traffic overhead (multiplexing+header compression) and can save them a lot of bandwidth (aka. money) with that.
- dathinab 6y ago
  But exactly that's the point. It can be handled transparently in a much easier way then the Ipv6 switch. (Because IPv6 is so much more different then just IPv4 + more addresses, and worse, many people don't realize it and treat it as IPv4 with more addresses which resulted in many problems).
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Exactly. AWS and GCP load balancers accept HTTP/2 but allow for those requests to be forward to backend instances as HTTP/1 because of this.

uluyol 6y ago

Most _domains_ may not support HTTP/3, but I fully expect that within a few years most _traffic_ will be HTTP/3.