3 ms·

This is exactly the problem. We need a better transport layer. You know, the speed at which SPDY has caught on has given me hope. Admittedly, that's at the ap

by jnbiche 13y ago

This is exactly the problem. We need a better transport layer. You know, the speed at which SPDY has caught on has given me hope. Admittedly, that's at the application layer, but I think if Google were to get behind an initiative to create a better TCP, it would actually have a chance at working. Historically, Google's incentives were properly aligned with a decentralized Internet, but Google is more and more a content producer. So I'm not sure. Until then, we'll have to rely on servers to bootstrap peer-to-peer networks, even Bitcoin, Bittorrent, and yes, WebRTC.

rubiquity 13y ago
> but I think if Google were to get behind an initiative to create a better TCP, it would actually have a chance at working. I don't think Google has much interest in a decentralized web. Google, along with Facebook, are two of the prime examples of a centralized web.
- dclara 13y ago
  Yeah, you got the point. They are on the list of "reliant on big companies, and one big server". But "support geo-distributed clusters" remains an open task on Google's radar. See here: http://highscalability.com/google-architecture http://highscalability.com/google-architecture Unfortunately, with the existing architecture and infrastructure along with the team resources, they are focusing more on the algorithms of machine intelligence and AI.
oscargrouch 13y ago
>You know, the speed at which SPDY has caught on has given me hope. Admittedly, that's at the application layer, but I think if Google were to get behind an initiative to create a better TCP, it would actually have a chance at working. You might find QUIC interesting (being implemented on chrome): http://blog.chromium.org/2013/06/experimenting-with-quic.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/06/experimenting-with-quic.htm... The "SPDY" application layer its implemented on top of it.. working at UDP.. so in theory, one can implement other sorts of applications layers on top of it..
- jnbiche 13y ago
  Oh, thank you. I hadn't heard of QUIC. It's tunneled through UDP...does that mean it's NAT-friendly? Presumably so.
  - M2Ys4U 13y ago
    >It's tunneled through UDP...does that mean it's NAT-friendly? Presumably so. Not as NAT friendly as you might think. There's a fair bit of discussion in the QUIC design document[0] around how NATs screw up the protocol and how to mitigate the problem. [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/edit#heading=h.7mlx5id9bdry https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqs...

by jnbiche 13y ago

rubiquity 13y ago

> but I think if Google were to get behind an initiative to create a better TCP, it would actually have a chance at working. I don't think Google has much interest in a decentralized web. Google, along with Facebook, are two of the prime examples of a centralized web.

dclara 13y ago
Yeah, you got the point. They are on the list of "reliant on big companies, and one big server". But "support geo-distributed clusters" remains an open task on Google's radar. See here: http://highscalability.com/google-architecture http://highscalability.com/google-architecture Unfortunately, with the existing architecture and infrastructure along with the team resources, they are focusing more on the algorithms of machine intelligence and AI.

oscargrouch 13y ago

>You know, the speed at which SPDY has caught on has given me hope. Admittedly, that's at the application layer, but I think if Google were to get behind an initiative to create a better TCP, it would actually have a chance at working. You might find QUIC interesting (being implemented on chrome): http://blog.chromium.org/2013/06/experimenting-with-quic.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/06/experimenting-with-quic.htm... The "SPDY" application layer its implemented on top of it.. working at UDP.. so in theory, one can implement other sorts of applications layers on top of it..

jnbiche 13y ago
Oh, thank you. I hadn't heard of QUIC. It's tunneled through UDP...does that mean it's NAT-friendly? Presumably so.
- M2Ys4U 13y ago
  >It's tunneled through UDP...does that mean it's NAT-friendly? Presumably so. Not as NAT friendly as you might think. There's a fair bit of discussion in the QUIC design document[0] around how NATs screw up the protocol and how to mitigate the problem. [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/edit#heading=h.7mlx5id9bdry https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqs...