3 ms·
Even if HTTP/3 had gone the route of registering QUIC as a new transport protocol instead of UDP, I think it would have still been at least one or two orders of
by simiones 3y ago
Even if HTTP/3 had gone the route of registering QUIC as a new transport protocol instead of UDP, I think it would have still been at least one or two orders of magnitude easier to deploy than IPv6 was (though still much harder than going over UDP is, I'm not suggesting this was a bad choice in any way!).
They would have had problems with kernel updates and with devices that make assumptions and more paranoid security policies, but they would have probably been able to convince most people to allow their packets to flow after a few years. Changing IPv6 is a much more fundamental change to the Internet as a whole.
- lxgr 3y agoI think assigning a new IP protocol number would have made QUIC a complete non-starter, and for almost no benefit compared to just encapsulating it in UDP. That's why WebRTC encapsulates SCTP (for data connections) in UDP, why ESP (for IPsec) is encapsulated in UDP etc. > they would have probably been able to convince most people to allow their packets to flow after a few years Looking at all these stateful NATs in network cabinets that nobody has looked at for years, I highly, highly doubt it.