Internet protocols are changing • Hacker News Board

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#21

Post by hellbanner » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 6:46 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #10

jandrese wrote: post #3

> When a protocol can’t evolve because deployments ‘freeze’ its extensibility points, we say it has ossified. TCP itself is a severe example of ossification; so many middleboxes do so many things to TCP — whether it’s blocking packets with TCP options that aren’t recognized, or ‘optimizing’ congestion control. > It’s necessary to prevent ossification, to ensure that protocols can evolve to meet the needs of the Inter…

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

Who are the powers that be that benefit from fatter pipes + content distribution?

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#22

Post by adictator » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

Isn't ws:// also a new-ish protocol that is not supported yet by many browsers natively at least?

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#23

Post by benjaminl » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #10

jandrese wrote: post #3

> When a protocol can’t evolve because deployments ‘freeze’ its extensibility points, we say it has ossified. TCP itself is a severe example of ossification; so many middleboxes do so many things to TCP — whether it’s blocking packets with TCP options that aren’t recognized, or ‘optimizing’ congestion control. > It’s necessary to prevent ossification, to ensure that protocols can evolve to meet the needs of the Inter…

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

Then you will greatly relieved to hear that as of 2010 all major browsers cache content delivered over HTTPS.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#24

Post by enzanki_ars » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

adictator wrote: post #22

Isn't ws:// also a new-ish protocol that is not supported yet by many browsers natively at least?

https://caniuse.com/#feat=websockets

Most nativity support it now.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#25

Post by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

benjaminl wrote: post #23

peterwwillis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

Then you will greatly relieved to hear that as of 2010 all major browsers cache content delivered over HTTPS. https://stackoverflow.com/a/174485/262789

I assume they were referring to intermediate caching, not client side caching.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#26

Post by pfranz » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

24gttghh wrote: post #16

pfranz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point, IPv6 has been around 20 years, the whole time we know we're running out of IPv4 addresses and adoption is still around 20%. However, the high turnover for mobile phones has allowed more aggressive changes to the networking stack. Perhaps this, in addition to IPv6, would make something like SCTP easier to adopt widely?

"Still" seems a bit disingenuous when considering the current trajectory IPv6 adoption is on. [0] Yah it's happening slowly, but it does seem to be pushing ahead. [0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

How is that disingenuous? I don't think it matters what the curve looks like when it spans 10 years and ends up at 20%. There were implementations released 10 years previous to the graph's start. I wasn't implying it would never happen, just that even for something that's inevitable like IPv6, adoption is glacial.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#27

Post by cmurf » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #10

jandrese wrote: post #3

> When a protocol can’t evolve because deployments ‘freeze’ its extensibility points, we say it has ossified. TCP itself is a severe example of ossification; so many middleboxes do so many things to TCP — whether it’s blocking packets with TCP options that aren’t recognized, or ‘optimizing’ congestion control. > It’s necessary to prevent ossification, to ensure that protocols can evolve to meet the needs of the Inter…

> It seems like everybody assumes you're on a big fat broadband pipe now and nobody else matters. This is intentional. The powers that be have an interest in moving everyone to faster networks, and they effectively control all new web standards, and so build their protocols to force the apps to require faster, bigger pipes. This way they are never to blame for the new requirements, yet they get the intended benefits…

Content creators make this assumption way more than any other party. Webpage bloat is already several years past qualifying as obscenely bloated, new words need to be used to describe it today.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#28

Post by signa11 » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

the author is responsible for the 418 teapot incident in the early 2000's. though i am sure he is a swell guy :)

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#29

Post by mikevm » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

Regarding throughput, see UDT (http://udt.sourceforge.net/) which does reliable data transfer over UDP.

Re: Internet protocols are changing

#30

Post by teddyh » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

xingped wrote: post #17

frut wrote: post #11

This is just depressing. Sure, sell us out to big corporations by not implementing proper features in protocols like HTTP/2 so we can get tracked for decades to come. Yet, represent freedom by yet another cool way to "fool" governments. When historians look back at what happened to the Internet, or even society, they are going to find that organizations like the IETF was to busy with romantic dreams of their own grea…

What features are missing that should be implemented?

Not the OP, but omitting support for SRV records in HTTP/2 was a terrible missed opportunity, as I’ve written about here before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404788

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8550133

I quote myself: “It really is no surprise that Google is not interested in this, since Google does not suffer from any of those problems which using SRV records for HTTP would solve. It’s only users which could more easily run their own web servers closer to the edges of the network which would benefit, not the large companies which has CDNs and BGP AS numbers to fix any shortcomings the hard way. Google has already done the hard work of solving this problem for themselves – of course they want to keep the problem for everybody else.”