[Outages-discussion] NTT - High Latency between Dallas and LA exchanges

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On May 18, 2023, at 08:56, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 08:18:58AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore via Outages-discussion wrote:
>> Yet you think this is Google???s fault by advocating for an open protocol which has objective benefits to end users? What am I missing?
> 
> Building a new protocol on top of UDP when it's well-known that many
> ISPs rate-limit UDP (due to "there is no large amounts of UDP in the
> wide area Internet, except for reflective DDoS crap") is not exactly
> a very smart move.
> 
> Nothing about QUIC is really a smart move, beyond "we're google, we can
> do what we want" - and IETF being what it is, if you have strong enough
> vendor backing, you can get anything standardized.

TCP has run into problems and limitations Dr. Kahn & Dr. Cerf could not have envisioned in the 70s. (I guess 1980 is when v4 was finally standardized, but still.) QUIC avoids some of those limitations and has helped improve the experience of literally billions of people (and devices). How exactly does that equate to not being “a smart move”?

As for “vendor backing”, it takes more than an IETF RFC to be accepted and adopted. (Citation: IPv6.) Also, I was specifically speaking of "side-step the protocol
stack”. It is, by definition, not side-stepping the protocol stack.

Look, if you don’t like QUIC, no worries. I do not work for Google, and I am not trying to tell you how to run your apps or your network. But QUIC is a real protocol used by real people that has real benefits over TCP/HTTP. Claiming otherwise is, frankly, silly.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20230518/b00ed15d/attachment.htm>