3 ms·

Nice! I implemented this same idea in the social network we're launching today (already Apple approved, ready to hit the Release to Store button in just a few m

Nice! I implemented this same idea in the social network we're launching today (already Apple approved, ready to hit the Release to Store button in just a few minutes). Google's right: it's bloody fast, with zero-latency crypto setup times. We love it. This is terrific tech for mobile devices and high-latency, cellular networks. EDIT: Obviously, I didn't implement QUIC specifically, but something that's equivalent (for our own application). We used NaCl specifically for the cryptography, although there's more to it than just making library calls…

est 13y ago
> it's bloody fast Not so fast (yet). http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/11/08/1818258/taking-googles-quic-for-a-test-drive http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/11/08/1818258/taking-...
- erichocean 13y ago
  Comparing an encrypted protocol with an unencrypted one is just lame. Furthermore, QUIC doesn't even have all of its feature set turned on, so these comparisons with unencrypted HTTP are, at best, premature. Also, comparing a single HTTP connection with a SPDY-like connection also misses the point. We like UDP+PK crypto because it gives us zero latency connection setup times, allows mobile devices to change IPs without disrupting their connections, and for us, our average message size is 256 bytes (think: Twitter), and never over 1400 bytes, so every message we send has zero fragmentation. That leaves message reordering and handling dropped packets, something that's trivial given the rest of our protocol.
  - est 13y ago
    > Comparing an encrypted protocol with an unencrypted one is just lame Still, that doesn't explain the chart "Goodput as connection speed increases". Something must be capped in QUIC (or perhaps the benchmark setup) If you think their methodology is flawed you can take a look at the source code maybe fork and improve it. https://github.com/Connectify/benchmarking/ https://github.com/Connectify/benchmarking/

est 13y ago

> it's bloody fast Not so fast (yet). http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/11/08/1818258/taking-googles-quic-for-a-test-drive http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/11/08/1818258/taking-...

erichocean 13y ago
Comparing an encrypted protocol with an unencrypted one is just lame. Furthermore, QUIC doesn't even have all of its feature set turned on, so these comparisons with unencrypted HTTP are, at best, premature. Also, comparing a single HTTP connection with a SPDY-like connection also misses the point. We like UDP+PK crypto because it gives us zero latency connection setup times, allows mobile devices to change IPs without disrupting their connections, and for us, our average message size is 256 bytes (think: Twitter), and never over 1400 bytes, so every message we send has zero fragmentation. That leaves message reordering and handling dropped packets, something that's trivial given the rest of our protocol.
- est 13y ago
  > Comparing an encrypted protocol with an unencrypted one is just lame Still, that doesn't explain the chart "Goodput as connection speed increases". Something must be capped in QUIC (or perhaps the benchmark setup) If you think their methodology is flawed you can take a look at the source code maybe fork and improve it. https://github.com/Connectify/benchmarking/ https://github.com/Connectify/benchmarking/