Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

brighttalk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#61

Post by moomin »

rakoo wrote: post #59
_vbdg wrote: post #52

Nah, I think it won't. 1. Not everything needs encryption, so QUIC's built-in TLS doesn't always make sense. 2. Not everything that needs encryption needs TLS specifically. TLS is not a one-size-fits-all solution. These reflect the fact that QUIC is a transport protocol for the WWW more than a TCP replacement. By the way, does anyone know why QUIC specifically put NewReno as its official congestion control [0]? Diffe…

1) Not everything needs encryption, but crucially, nothing is worse off if it is encrypted. Encryption is either useless or better, so why not put it everywhere by default ? 2) QUIC explicitely doesn't use TLS but something different, so indeed, not everything needs TLS

The thing is, if you run Istio there’s a standard setting for getting it to do the TLS for you. Indeed, half the features of istio wouldn’t work if you did the TLS yourself. So you kind of need plaintext protocols even if you’re only running them internally within a single (logical) machine.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#62

Post by nickthemagicman »

rakoo wrote: post #59
_vbdg wrote: post #52

Nah, I think it won't. 1. Not everything needs encryption, so QUIC's built-in TLS doesn't always make sense. 2. Not everything that needs encryption needs TLS specifically. TLS is not a one-size-fits-all solution. These reflect the fact that QUIC is a transport protocol for the WWW more than a TCP replacement. By the way, does anyone know why QUIC specifically put NewReno as its official congestion control [0]? Diffe…

1) Not everything needs encryption, but crucially, nothing is worse off if it is encrypted. Encryption is either useless or better, so why not put it everywhere by default ? 2) QUIC explicitely doesn't use TLS but something different, so indeed, not everything needs TLS

I like how tcp/ip operates below the encryption layer so encryption schemes can be easily changed.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#63

Post by [deleted] »

rakoo wrote: post #59
_vbdg wrote: post #52

Nah, I think it won't. 1. Not everything needs encryption, so QUIC's built-in TLS doesn't always make sense. 2. Not everything that needs encryption needs TLS specifically. TLS is not a one-size-fits-all solution. These reflect the fact that QUIC is a transport protocol for the WWW more than a TCP replacement. By the way, does anyone know why QUIC specifically put NewReno as its official congestion control [0]? Diffe…

1) Not everything needs encryption, but crucially, nothing is worse off if it is encrypted. Encryption is either useless or better, so why not put it everywhere by default ? 2) QUIC explicitely doesn't use TLS but something different, so indeed, not everything needs TLS

[deleted]

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#64

Post by pawalt »

rakoo wrote: post #59
_vbdg wrote: post #52

Nah, I think it won't. 1. Not everything needs encryption, so QUIC's built-in TLS doesn't always make sense. 2. Not everything that needs encryption needs TLS specifically. TLS is not a one-size-fits-all solution. These reflect the fact that QUIC is a transport protocol for the WWW more than a TCP replacement. By the way, does anyone know why QUIC specifically put NewReno as its official congestion control [0]? Diffe…

1) Not everything needs encryption, but crucially, nothing is worse off if it is encrypted. Encryption is either useless or better, so why not put it everywhere by default ? 2) QUIC explicitely doesn't use TLS but something different, so indeed, not everything needs TLS

"nothing is worse off if it is encrypted" is a pretty big oversimplification. Layer 7 proxies and firewalls frequently use packet data to make more intelligent decisions about where to route packets, whether to drop packets, whether to modify packets, etc.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#66

Post by Wowfunhappy »

dragontamer wrote: post #60
rakoo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Not everything needs encryption, but crucially, nothing is worse off if it is encrypted. Encryption is either useless or better, so why not put it everywhere by default ? 2) QUIC explicitely doesn't use TLS but something different, so indeed, not everything needs TLS

> nothing is worse off if it is encrypted Performance and power consumption of low-end devices.

And particularly embedded devices. Just because we can make very fast cpu's nowadays doesn't mean that every cpu is that fast.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#67

Post by marcosdumay »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #41
marcosdumay wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they break TLS. That's almost as broad as breaking TCP. And it's because they want levels of control on the least affordable place. They wouldn't need to break anything if they added the supervising software to the endpoints.

It's odd you refer to endpoints as being the "more affordable place". Because running monitoring software on 5,000 PCs plus management infrastructure and software updates is a lot more "expensive" than having a single purpose-built box on the border between the network and the wider Internet. Now, I get that QUIC's developers live in a zero-trust/BeyondCorp model, and expect everyone else to too, and with COVID-19, a…

> It's odd you refer to endpoints as being the "more affordable place".

The endpoints afford monitoring. The middle of the network does not afford it, so you are fighting the system and it is certain that you will break stuff.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#68

Post by fart_ratty »

_vbdg wrote: post #52

Nah, I think it won't. 1. Not everything needs encryption, so QUIC's built-in TLS doesn't always make sense. 2. Not everything that needs encryption needs TLS specifically. TLS is not a one-size-fits-all solution. These reflect the fact that QUIC is a transport protocol for the WWW more than a TCP replacement. By the way, does anyone know why QUIC specifically put NewReno as its official congestion control [0]? Diffe…

Other than captive portals, what would be harmed by adding encryption. It might not provide benefit but is there any downside?

What is using TCP that wouldn't work with QUIC?

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#69

Post by fart_ratty »

kazen44 wrote: post #55
CameronNemo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not thought much about how BGP would react to QUIC as transport, would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

for one, not having hardware acceleration makes quic very slow compared to TCP. This is especially a problem on firewalls, as they need to tear apart and reassemble tcp packets at line speed. In terms of BGP and quic as a transport. As far as i know, quic is not backwards compatible with TCP, and having two different transport protocols for the routing protocols that ties the internet together would be problematic in…

BGP not having security has caused many problems.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#70

Post by stingraycharles »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #66
dragontamer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nothing is worse off if it is encrypted Performance and power consumption of low-end devices.

And particularly embedded devices. Just because we can make very fast cpu's nowadays doesn't mean that every cpu is that fast.

Yup I work with a lot of industrial IoT companies. QUIC will not replace TCP/IP there any time soon.
Post reply on HN