On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:28 AM Daniel Dent <nanog-l...@contactdaniel.net> wrote: > > On 2020-02-18 4:25 p.m., Jared Mauch wrote: > > The members of the QUIC WG at IETF have not thought this was a problem as > > they don't observe it across the board. > > > > The cost for payloads with QUIC is much higher on the CPU side vs TCP as > > well - this is also not considered an issue either.
Jared, you mean: "Cost on the server" here not "cost on the router". I think, and I ask because at least some of Daniel's note implies, to my reading, that 'on the router' was your concern? > There's plenty of room for system call/interface improvements and > hardware acceleration in UDP stacks, both of which should help with CPU > concerns. Now that UDP may represent a significant portion of internet > traffic, it will be easier for the necessary engineering expense to be > justified. > > The explanation I got (which seems fair) from someone was that they only > > way to roll a new transport was to squat on some existing stuff that would > > make it through firewalls. > If there's clearly a two-way flow occurring, i.e. as is the case with a 2 way flow means something on your home host or home gateway. It means very little at internet scale... since, in many cases, you -> server and server -> you are not sharing many of the same links / routers / etc. -chris
