4 ms·
>saving a few ms per request, or more likely just on the first request. That's not given, either as UDP is normally not prioritized under congestion.
by xxs 2y ago
>saving a few ms per request, or more likely just on the first request.
That's not given, either as UDP is normally not prioritized under congestion.
- eptcyka 2y agoBut that will change, as more and more clients will rely on UDP on port 443.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoIt's also a poor congestion control practice to begin with. The main categories of UDP traffic are DNS, VoIP and VPNs. DNS is extremely latency sensitive -- the entirety of what happens next is waiting for the response -- so dropping DNS packets is a great way to make everything suck more than necessary. VoIP often uses some error correction and can tolerate some level of packet loss, but it's still a realtime protocol and purposely degrading it is likewise foolish. And VPNs are carrying arbitrary traffic. You don't even know what it is. Assigning this anything less than "normal" priority is ridiculous. In general middleboxes should stop trying to be smart. They will fail, will make things worse, and should embrace being as dumb and simple as possible. Don't try to identify traffic, just forward every packet you can and drop them at random when the pipe is full. The endpoints will figure it out.
- eptcyka 2y agoAllegedly, some traffic is best split into multiple socket addresses to work around the smart middleboxes.