This article omits that Caddy has had long-running experimental support for HTTP/3 for a couple of years now: https://caddyserver.com/docs/json/apps/http/servers/experime...
The Status of HTTP/3
11–20 of 123 posts
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#12Why 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.
Yup. For example there's a draft proposal for DNS-over-QUIC: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic-06.htm...
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#13Because 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...
All the more reason not to bother with IPv4.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#14From a brief look at the Rust side -
Actix uses Tokio
Quiche doesn't
Quinn does but doesn't look quite ready and I don't see any integration attempts with Actix yet.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#15Why are they calling it HTTP/3 and not just keeping the QUIC name?
That would be like calling http/1 'tcp'.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#16I hate to be a curmudgeon, but I can't help but think that designing a new service over UDP isn't the best idea. DNS has been fighting off wave after wave of attack vectors, some that realistically cannot even be fixed. Making it immune to these vectors is going to look a lot like a slapped together TCP over UDP...
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#17Why are they calling it HTTP/3 and not just keeping the QUIC name?
You can use QUIC without HTTP/3. QUIC streams are just bidirectional Streams without HTTP semantics, and can therefore carry arbitrary data.
The HTTP mapping on top of QUIC is called HTTP/3.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#18Because 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.
Isn't that like any device behind NAT?
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#19I hate to be a curmudgeon, but I can't help but think that designing a new service over UDP isn't the best idea. DNS has been fighting off wave after wave of attack vectors, some that realistically cannot even be fixed. Making it immune to these vectors is going to look a lot like a slapped together TCP over UDP...
curmudgeon (noun): a bad-tempered person, especially an old one.
Re: The Status of HTTP/3
#20Seems more verbose than https://caniuse.com/#feat=http3 TLDR - No browsers support it (without flag / config changes) yet.
In the age of evergreen browsers, it's possible to go from 0% to 85% in just a few weeks time. Upgrading web servers will be the real bottleneck.