The idea reminds me of uTP in terms of congestion handling. -- Tassos
Josh Hoppes wrote on 28/6/2013 23:16: > My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from > congesting links? > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1 >> >> Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side but >> since >> it's Google, it will almost certainly affect the ops side eventually. >> >> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think that >> middle >> boxen/firewalls make it problematic. That may be, but UDP based port >> filtering is >> probably not far behind on the flaky front. >> >> The second justification was TLS layering inefficiencies. That definitely >> has my >> sympathies as TLS (especially cert exchange) is bloated and the way that it >> was >> grafted onto TCP wasn't exactly the most elegant. Interestingly enough, >> their >> main justification wasn't a security concern so much as "helpful" middle >> boxen >> getting their filthy mitts on the traffic and screwing it up. >> >> The last thing that occurs to me reading their FAQ is that they are >> seemingly trying >> to send data with 0 round trips. That is, SYN, data, data, data... That >> really makes me >> wonder about security/dos considerations. As in, it sounds too good to be >> true. But >> maybe that's just the security cruft? But what about SYN cookies/dos? Hmmm. >> >> Other comments or clue? >> >> Mike >> >
