QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP? • Hacker News Board

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#41

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #21

kazen44 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tcp != the web. Also, most firewall don't break TCP, they break HTTP(S) because they want levels of control.

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 lot of businesses are suddenly having to look at thinking that way, it's far from how most companies work at present. And having a single box handle filtering and monitoring is actually the most affordable place to put it. ;)

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#42

Post by stainforth » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

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...

Is this instance of a patent good or bad?

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#43

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#44

Post by suncore » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

I think it might actually succeed to replace TCP. There are a bunch of benefits. There is a great video here about it that you should also watch before passing summary judgement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idViw4anA6E

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#45

Post by downerending » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

My bank account awaits a whole new raft of security problems for me to be paid to support/fix.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#46

Post by bregma » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

So, something layered on top of UDP layered on top of IP is going to replace IP?

Maybe the marketing department needs to hire someone who knows the fundamentals to write the headlines?

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#47

Post by jeltz » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

stainforth wrote: post #42

fiberoptick wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is this instance of a patent good or bad?

Bad, since it is an obvious idea that any engineer in the field could come up with.

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#48

Post by fiberoptick » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

stainforth wrote: post #42

fiberoptick wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is this instance of a patent good or bad?

Bad, in my view. (Although I am not a lawyer, and would definitely appreciate input from one here!)

Hardware offload of a network protocol is an extremely generic concept and this patent seems to describe that concept (without any kind of novel mechanism or implementation details).

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#49

Post by jimktrains2 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #23

kazen44 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tcp != the web. Also, most firewall don't break TCP, they break HTTP(S) because they want levels of control.

Do keep in mind that "want" isn't exactly accurate. No IT team wants to spend any time/effort maintaining that crap, the business doesn't want to shell out for it either since it's expensive, and the ops team doesn't want yet another thing mucking with traffic. Yet we have one because it's required by law. Wanna take a guess at what companies make sure it stays required by law?

Please tell me what law applies to most companies that do this?

Re: QUIC – Will It Replace TCP/IP?

#50

Post by jchw » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

chungy wrote: post #36

jchw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure. In fact most video games use some kind of networking middleware. But tbh, a lot of them are not so great because a lot of concerns get mixed together, and if you want a reliable connection with congestion control you likely will just open a TCP connection somewhere with a different protocol.

For the hobbyist world, this option as a low level transport is not so bad imo. Like as a replacement for ENet which does not have IPv6 support today seems reasonable.