The Status of HTTP/3
infoq.com
The Status of HTTP/3
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#2> with almost 300,000 services using it across the world
The Shodan search given scans headers for all requests. So the vast majority of results are sites using Google Fonts, Maps, etc.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#3Seems more verbose than https://caniuse.com/#feat=http3
TLDR - No browsers support it (without flag / config changes) yet.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#4Because QIC is UDP based, Chrome first runs a race with TCP just in case you're sitting behind some device that blocks UDP.
I wonder how much bandwidth this will waste globally.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#5Because QIC is UDP based, Chrome first runs a race with TCP just in case you're sitting behind some device that blocks UDP. I wonder how much bandwidth this will waste globally.
I wonder if Happy Eyeballs means that there are 4 races in total for systems under dual-stack...
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#6Why are they calling it HTTP/3 and not just keeping the QUIC name?
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#7I created a container image of Discourse using nginx with the cloudflare patch to enable HTTP/3[1] and for some reason the same config that works fine in HTTP/2 loses the content-type header on Google Chrome. It works just fine in Firefox...
1. https://github.com/cloudflare/quiche/tree/master/extras/ngin...
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#8Because QIC is UDP based, Chrome first runs a race with TCP just in case you're sitting behind some device that blocks UDP. I wonder how much bandwidth this will waste globally.
Most global bandwidth is from video streaming, so most of the data isn't in the first couple packets.
So the number would probably be surprisingly large but also a very small fraction of overall traffic.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#9Why are they calling it HTTP/3 and not just keeping the QUIC name?
Well, why did we call it http/2 and not just keep the SPDY name?
Probably because it's easier to know what's being talked about if we keep the historical protocol name. If the submission title was "The status of QUIC" I wouldn't have remembered it had anything to do with HTTP.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#10Why are they calling it HTTP/3 and not just keeping the QUIC name?
Two reasons I can think of:
1. HTTP/2 was a 'new serialization' of the core HTTP data model. HTTP/3 is too, so since it was ratified it made sense to use HTTP/3 to keep things consistent. 2. QUIC still exists, but it's now the underlying framing/messaging protocol on top of UDP. I can imagine future internet protocols being developed on top of QUIC that don't need HTTP/3.