3 ms·

>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 ini

>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...