On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org> > wrote: > >> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to >> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC. > > This is the main reason why I'm very supportive of this effort. I'm a bit > skeptical of what I have read so far, but I know that it's nearly impossible > to tell how these things really work from theory and simulations. Live, real > world testing is required competing with all sorts of other flows. > > Google with their hands in both things like www.google.com and Chrome is in > an interesting position to implement server and client side of these > implementations, and turn them on and off at will. They can do the real > world tests, tweak, report on them, and advance the state of the art. > > So for now I'll reserve judgement on this particular protocol, while > encouraging Google to do more of this sort of real world testing at the > protocol level. >
+1, Google is smart for doing this. It is important to push the boundaries on performance. QUIC is UDP, and UDP is the right step for now. And, hopefully this stuff gets rolled up into ILNP stack features. Yes ILNP needs stack changes, think big. Not all things can NOT be a simple incremental tweaks. ILNP will be a revolution. QUIC is simply a revolt on performance issues with TCP in today's low-loss, high latency (mobile), and middle box encumbered networks. CB > Now, how about an SCTP test? :) > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > > > > >
