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

HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

httptoolkit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 504 posts

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#21

Post by troupo »

A lot of the article is the same marketing spiel that Google has been using to promote QUIC (and then HTTP/3)

At best those amazeballs advantages are applicable only at Google's scale, and have very little impact anywhere else.

Worse, still,

--- start quote ---

We find that over fast Internet, the UDP+QUIC+HTTP/3 stack suffers a data rate reduction of up to 45.2% compared to the TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 counterpart. Moreover, the performance gap between QUIC and HTTP/2 grows as the underlying bandwidth increases.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09423

--- end quote ---

And if you believe the discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25970258 it increased the load on the server unless you can "spend years optimizing it".

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#22

Post by userbinator »

confirmr wrote: post #15

> You'll start to see lack of HTTP/3 support used as a signal to trigger captchas & CDN blocks, like as TLS fingerprinting is already today. HTTP/3 support could very quickly & easily become a way to detect many non-browser clients, cutting long-tail clients off from the modern web entirely. That explains it. I've seen this when using 3 year old browsers on retail web sites recently. A few cloud providers think I’m a…

It's horrible that the Internet is slowly becoming a locked-down ecosystem. Everyone should turn off HTTP/3 in protest of this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43329320

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#23

Post by arccy »

jsheard wrote: post #13
artyom wrote: post #10

Every single project mentioned in the article is to some extent either open source and/or community driven. So nobody considered HTTP/3 interesting enough to rush and add support for it very quickly. It'll get there, but fast? I don't think so, see IPv6. Also, nobody considered HTTP/3 worth enough of paying for maintainers to add support for it.

Nginx (F5) and Go (Google) are hardly scrappy open source projects with limited resources. The former is semi-commercial, you can pay for Nginx and still not have stable HTTP3 support. Google was one of the main drivers of the HTTP3 spec and has supported it both in Chromium and on their own cloud for years, but for whatever reason they haven't put the same effort into Go's stdlib.

It's in progress: quic is in testing in http://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/net/quic and http3 is being implemented https://github.com/golang/go/issues/70914

Since Go has strong backwards compatibility guarantees, they're unlikely to commit to APIs that may need to change in the standard library.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#24

Post by hypeatei »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #2

> At the same time, neither QUIC nor HTTP/3 are included in the standard libraries of any major languages including Node.js, Go, Rust, Python or Ruby. .NET actually looking like it has decent support for any teams that are interested[0] (side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major"...). There is an open source C library that they've published that seems rather far along[1] Support for Windows, Linux[2],…

> side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major

I've said it before on here, but the tech community severely underrates .NET today. It's not Windows only (and hasn't been for ~8 years) plus C# is a very nice language. F# is also an option for people who like functional languages. I'd highly recommend giving it a try if you haven't already.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#25

Post by inejge »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #2

> At the same time, neither QUIC nor HTTP/3 are included in the standard libraries of any major languages including Node.js, Go, Rust, Python or Ruby. .NET actually looking like it has decent support for any teams that are interested[0] (side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major"...). There is an open source C library that they've published that seems rather far along[1] Support for Windows, Linux[2],…

> At the same time, neither QUIC nor HTTP/3 are included in the standard libraries of any major languages including Node.js, Go, Rust, Python or Ruby.

.NET omission notwithstanding, one of the languages in the list is not like the others: Rust has a deliberately minimal standard library and doesn't include HTTP at all. I don't follow Rust HTTP/3 efforts closely, but there are at least two actively developed libraries: quiche and quinn.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#26

Post by JimDabell »

I’ve been using niquests with Python. It supports HTTP/3 and a bunch of other goodies. The Python ecosystem has been kind of stuck on the requests package due to inertia, but that library is basically dead now. I’d encourage Python developers to give niquests a try. You can use it as a drop-in replacement for requests then switch to the better async API when you need to.

https://niquests.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Traditionally these types of things are developed outside the stdlib for Python. I’m not sure why they draw the line where they do between urllib vs niquests, but it does sometimes feel like the batteries-included nature of Python is a little neglected in some areas. A good HTTP library seems like it belongs in the stdlib.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#27

Post by victor106 »

hypeatei wrote: post #24
CharlieDigital wrote: post #2

> At the same time, neither QUIC nor HTTP/3 are included in the standard libraries of any major languages including Node.js, Go, Rust, Python or Ruby. .NET actually looking like it has decent support for any teams that are interested[0] (side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major"...). There is an open source C library that they've published that seems rather far along[1] Support for Windows, Linux[2],…

> side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major I've said it before on here, but the tech community severely underrates .NET today. It's not Windows only (and hasn't been for ~8 years) plus C# is a very nice language. F# is also an option for people who like functional languages. I'd highly recommend giving it a try if you haven't already.

Can .net produce cross platform libraries/executables like Go does? With Go I can develop on Mac and create executables for windows and Linux

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#28

Post by LinuxBender »

jsheard wrote: post #9

It's pretty glaring that nginx still doesn't have production-ready HTTP3 support despite being a semi-commercial product backed by a multi billion dollar corporation. F5 is asleep at the wheel.

Out of curiosity have F5 added any new modules since they acquired Nginx?

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#29

Post by jchw »

If you are looking for a reverse proxy with good HTTP/3 support, I recommend Envoy. Configuring it is a bit of a chore, but it feels like it was engineered from first principles to be the best possible HTTP/2 and 3 reverse proxy. The architecture for HTTP is entirely based around the h2 protocol, unlike NGINX which splits requests into various phases and struggles to support things like bidirectional streaming and upstream h2. (One down side is that it really is a reverse proxy; no static file serving or anything like that. But if you know what you need it can be great.)

I do hope to see more QUIC and HTTP/3 support, but to be honest, even h2 support in many cases sucks pretty hard. The Go HTTP interface is still pretty much HTTP/1 oriented and really needs a rehaul, and even the h2 implementation feels like it still lacks some battle testing. I think that is a damn shame.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#30

Post by CharlieDigital »

victor106 wrote: post #27
hypeatei wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> side note: sad that .NET and C# are not considered "major I've said it before on here, but the tech community severely underrates .NET today. It's not Windows only (and hasn't been for ~8 years) plus C# is a very nice language. F# is also an option for people who like functional languages. I'd highly recommend giving it a try if you haven't already.

Can .net produce cross platform libraries/executables like Go does? With Go I can develop on Mac and create executables for windows and Linux

Yes, it can.

I work on .NET and work on Mac (hate the OS, but the hardware and battery life are way better).

Last startup, we shipped AWS t4g Arm64 and GCP x64 Linux containers. A few devs started on Windows (because of their preferred platform), but we all ended up on M1 MacBook Pros using a mix of Rider and VS Code.

Common misconception between old .NET Framework and new .NET # (e.g. .NET 9) (MS terrible naming). C#/.NET has been capable of cross platform binaries for close to a decade?

I have a bit more info here: https://typescript-is-like-csharp.chrlschn.dev/pages/intro-a...

Post reply on HN