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

31–40 of 142 posts

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#31

Post by drewg123 »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

QUIC has a substantial CPU overhead, due to lack of hardware or kernel acceleration. QUIC deployed worldwide might cost us a power station or two...

In estimates I've done, in its current un-accelerated state, it would at least triple the CPU cost per byte served on our CDN workload. We basically lose:

- sendfile

- ktls

- TSO

Its like stepping into a time machine and going back to the mid 90s. To send data with QUIC, we have to get byes from kernel into userspace, encrypt them in userspace, and then write them back to the kernel, where they travel down to the NIC an MTU at a time. Ugh.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#32

Post by jeltz »

kazen44 wrote: post #8
xxpor wrote: post #4

HTTP isn't the only L7 protocol.

this. Many people here seem to not realize that TCP is used for much more then just http/https. Quick might be nice for web traffic, but i see little reason to use it as an underlay for BGP for instance.

And why would QUIC not work for other streaming protocols? the only possible disadvantages I can see is that it is a bit more complex and that it requires encryption. It does not in any way require HTTP.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#34

Post by tyingq »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #30
tyingq wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporate firewalls I'm talking about do often break UDP. Because chrome races QUIC/UDP with HTTP(S)/TCP, the big corps are often unaware it's broken. Chrome works around it.

People with corporate firewalls should also be limiting the unruly behavior of web browsers using group policy. For instance, in my environment, regardless of your browser of choice, QUIC is disabled. (As is DoH and various other recent/trendy things browsers are doing.) We also disable all but a small whitelist of approved browser extensions.

Sure. There's lots of things non-tech Fortune 500's should do, but don't.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#35

Post by topspin »

londons_explore wrote: post #6

QUIC has a substantial CPU overhead, due to lack of hardware or kernel acceleration. QUIC deployed worldwide might cost us a power station or two...

Adoption of HTTP/2 also limits the appeal of QUIC. HTTP/2 delivers many (not all) of benefits QUIC offers and is both widely implemented and adopted now.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#36

Post by chungy »

jchw wrote: post #16
xxpor wrote: post #4

HTTP isn't the only L7 protocol.

Nothing prevents you from using QUIC as a replacement for TCP AFAIK - on the surface it seems like it would be potentially useful for more applications than HTTP. May even be a decent option for video games and other things that need somewhat lower latency and wish to avoid head-of-line blocking.

> May even be a decent option for video games and other things that need somewhat lower latency and wish to avoid head-of-line blocking.

Most video games already use UDP

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#37

Post by detaro »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #12
xxpor wrote: post #4

HTTP isn't the only L7 protocol.

The current version of QUIC is designed to support HTTP/3, but the QUIC roadmap includes support for other protocols as well.

I thought IETF QUIC was higher-level agnostic from the beginning, has that changed?

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#38

Post by spritecranberry »

fiberoptick wrote: post #20
londons_explore wrote: post #6

QUIC has a substantial CPU overhead, due to lack of hardware or kernel acceleration. QUIC deployed worldwide might cost us a power station or two...

And emerging QUIC acceleration technology is likely to be stifled by intellectual property laws. Intel has already filed (in 2019) for a European patent that seems to claim inventorship of the generic concept of hardware offloading (as it applies to QUIC) https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?pn=3541...

How ironic. If you listened to HN, you'd think that Europe was so pro-consumer, unlike those silly Americans who keep granting Stupid Patents to Evil Bigcorps.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#39

Post by jeltz »

detaro wrote: post #37
JoshTriplett wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current version of QUIC is designed to support HTTP/3, but the QUIC roadmap includes support for other protocols as well.

I thought IETF QUIC was higher-level agnostic from the beginning, has that changed?

No, it has not changed.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#40

Post by marcthe12 »

jchw wrote: post #16
xxpor wrote: post #4

HTTP isn't the only L7 protocol.

Nothing prevents you from using QUIC as a replacement for TCP AFAIK - on the surface it seems like it would be potentially useful for more applications than HTTP. May even be a decent option for video games and other things that need somewhat lower latency and wish to avoid head-of-line blocking.

QUIC seems to have encryption so something like SSH could come
Post reply on HN