On Jan 16, 2014 10:16 AM, "Saku Ytti" <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > > On (2014-01-16 09:19 -0800), Cb B wrote: > > > I hope QUIC does not stay on UDP, as it may find itself cut off at the > > legs. > > Any new L4 would need to support both flavours, over UDP and native. Over UDP > is needed to be deployable right now and be working to vast majority of the > end users. > Native-only would present chicken and egg problem, goog/fb/amzn/msft etc won't > add support to it, because failure rate is too high, and stateful box vendors > won't add support, because no customer demand. > > And what becomes to deployment pace, good technologies which give benefits to > end users can and have been deployed very fast. > IPv6 does not give benefit to end users, EDNS does not give benefit to end > users. > > QUIC/MinimaLT/IETF-transport-standardized-version would give benefit to end > users, all persistent connections like ssh would keep running when you jump > between networks. > You could in your homeserver specifically allow /you/ to connect to any > service, regardless of your IP address, because key is your identity, not your > IP address. (So sort of LISPy thing going on here, we'd make IP more low-level > information which it should be, it wouldn't be identity anymore) > Parity packets have potential to give much better performance in packet loss > conditions. Packet pacing seems much better on fast to slow file transfers. > > -- > ++ytti >
Then let's go all the way with ILNP. I like that. CB