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

431–440 of 504 posts

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#431

Post by genewitch »

frollogaston wrote: post #307
kstrauser wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's not being used", except for nearly half of Google's traffic: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Disconnect your phone from Wi-Fi and visit https://ifconfig.co/ . If you're a Verizon customer, it's probably going to show you an IPv6 address. It's huge, right now, today.

"Depended on" is what I should have said. An ISP or website can be v4-only or support both, but it's not going to be v6-only.

I ran an ipv6-only website because that's the only way I can have a publicly routeable address at home. Just as an anecdote.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#432

Post by aboardRat4 »

upofadown wrote: post #422
aboardRat4 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most IoT applications are not very sensitive to things like latency and what counts as reliability is very much dependent on the situation. IoT is not about latency. IoT is about devices being behind a NAT which does not allow inbound connections. With UDP-based HTTP/3 it is possible to do "udp hole punching".

>With UDP-based HTTP/3 it is possible to do "udp hole punching". That works reliably with all the various types of NAT?

For some definition of "reliably".

In the sense that nothing is really reliable in the presence of state-level adversaries censuring traffic, malicious ISPs, and crappy hardware. In general I have been more successful with QUIC hole punching than with ipv6.

But having a standard and relatively broadly implemented way to make reliable "TCP-like" streams over UDP is a great thing regardless.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#433

Post by crazygringo »

immibis wrote: post #419
crazygringo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, are you really questioning whether these threats exist? Or whether not using HTTP/3 is one potential signal of being a bot (out of many ), since tools like cURL don't support HTTP/3? The two other commenters are wrong, ads are not the main use case at all. And disabling HTTP/3 won't block ads, not even the tiniest bit. It appears you are getting a lot of misinformation.

I would like you to explain specifically and concretely why you need this, without using any broad abstract ideas like "bots" or "fraud". For example: "We were receiving 1000 spam and 100 legitimate comments per day even though we used hCaptcha on the comment form. When we disabled HTTP 1.1 on the comment endpoint, the spam stopped entirely, and we still received 95 legitimate comments per day." (in this scenario, I…

Sorry, but you seem to be continuing to misunderstand how this works. Disabling a version of HTTP on its own is not going to stop spam. You seem to be confused about how something can be one factor out of many in a statistical model.

If you don't want to talk about basic concepts like bots or fraud, and don't understand how and why detection mechanisms for them exist, I suggest you do your own research. There are lots of explanations out there. An HN comment isn't a place where I can help you with that, sorry.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#434

Post by wizzwizz4 »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #232
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your static and dynamic assets should be served from different domains anyway, to reduce the overhead of authentication headers / improve cache coherency. https://sstatic.net/ quotes a good explanation, apparently mirrored https://checkmyws.github.io/yslow-rules/ . (The original Yahoo Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site article has been taken down.)

Why does saving on cookies outweigh having to go through an additional TCP slow start?

Consider HTTP semantics. If there are cookies in the request, and those cookies change, it has to be re-requested every time. If there are no cookies, the request can remain semantically compatible, so the browser's internal caching proxy can just return the cached version.

There are other advantages: the article elaborates.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#435

Post by kllrnohj »

kccqzy wrote: post #113
elcritch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 always seemed to me to be driven by a certain class of purist networking geeks. Then some corporations started getting on board like you said, but many couldn't care less.

Oh many purist networking geeks joined large corporations so that these corporations began to push IPv6 in a direction set by the geeks. They understood that as independent geeks they have essentially no say in the evolution of IPv6. My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google.

> My favorite example here is Android refusing to support stateful DHCPv6; it's clear that it's being pushed by purist networking geeks inside Google.

If you read the huge bug on it, Google's counter argument is stateful dhcpv6 significantly complicates tethering to the point of needing an ipv6 nat. That's a very practical position to take, hardly "purist network objectionists"

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#436

Post by JimDabell »

antisthenes wrote: post #207
JimDabell wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not evolving at all: > Requests is in a perpetual feature freeze, only the BDFL can add or approve of new features. The maintainers believe that Requests is a feature-complete piece of software at this time. > One of the most important skills to have while maintaining a largely-used open source project is learning the ability to say “no” to suggested changes, while keeping an open ear and mind. > If you believe…

It takes a very special case of a person to complain about a feature-complete piece of software not evolving fast enough.

It’s an HTTP library that doesn’t support async or HTTP/2, let alone HTTP/3. It isn’t feature complete.

Besides, I was responding to this:

> The reason given for not including it in the stdlib was so it could evolve more rapidly.

Pointing out that it isn’t evolving at all is a perfectly reasonable response to that.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#437

Post by kragen »

crazygringo wrote: post #433
immibis wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like you to explain specifically and concretely why you need this, without using any broad abstract ideas like "bots" or "fraud". For example: "We were receiving 1000 spam and 100 legitimate comments per day even though we used hCaptcha on the comment form. When we disabled HTTP 1.1 on the comment endpoint, the spam stopped entirely, and we still received 95 legitimate comments per day." (in this scenario, I…

Sorry, but you seem to be continuing to misunderstand how this works. Disabling a version of HTTP on its own is not going to stop spam. You seem to be confused about how something can be one factor out of many in a statistical model. If you don't want to talk about basic concepts like bots or fraud, and don't understand how and why detection mechanisms for them exist, I suggest you do your own research. There are lot…

It sounds like you are advocating a policy to solve hypothetical problems or problems you have vaguely heard that somebody had once, not real-life problems where you are familiar with the tradeoffs.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#438

Post by kstrauser »

motorest wrote: post #361
kstrauser wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's not being used", except for nearly half of Google's traffic: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Disconnect your phone from Wi-Fi and visit https://ifconfig.co/ . If you're a Verizon customer, it's probably going to show you an IPv6 address. It's huge, right now, today.

> "It's not being used", except for nearly half of Google's traffic: One of the world's largest ISPs, Vodafone, is yet to support IPv6. What Google supports is irrelevant if your ISP can't handle the traffic.

True, but irrelevant to my point. Whether a particular ISP supports doesn’t matter: it is being widely used by the rest of the world, to the point that it’s half of Google’s traffic.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#439

Post by CharlieDigital »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #286
ziml77 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about different teams, it's that System.Windows.Forms is exactly what the namespace says. It's Windows Forms. It's a fairly thin wrapper over the Windows API. It's never going to be adapted to be cross-platform and isn't really something they've put any development work into for many years at this point. If you want a cross platform UI, use WPF with Avalonia. Or if you want something entirely from Microsoft…

JS is the only true cross-platform UI; sadly.

More accurately, HTML (+CSS)(+JS).

HTML is all you need for a cross platform UI.

Re: HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere

#440

Post by CharlieDigital »

redeeman wrote: post #426
CharlieDigital wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avalonia: https://avaloniaui.net/ , https://docs.avaloniaui.net/docs/overview/supported-platform... Uno: https://platform.uno/ , https://platform.uno/platforms/

what ui library are most .net applications created in the business world today using? what is microsoft telling people to use?

There's no such thing; it depends on the app that people are building, their use cases, and platforms.

Case in point: both Teams and VS Code: both web view wrappers.

Some trading shops are still using WPF and some are even using Windows Forms apps still.

Post reply on HN