On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:13:48 -0700 > >> Routing around the problem is already being done. > > QUIC, a new protocol used for specific purposes and implemented in > userspace from the start is significantly different from making the > kernel's _TCP_ implementation bypassed into a userspace one just by > UDP encapsulating it. > > That is a major and conscious change in our mentality. > > The consequences are far and wide, and I'm having a very hard time > seeing the benefits you cite being larger than the negatives here.
I don't believe TOU will lead to a proliferation of TCP implementations in the userland - getting a solid TCP implementation is hard. Yes any smart CS student in the networking field can write one over a weekend, to get 3WHS to work, and may even include graceful shutdown. But creating one from scratch that is both high quality, compliant, highly inter-operable, and highly performing is really hard. Just look at how much work folks on the list have to continue to pour in to maintain the Linux TCP stack as the best on the planet. Yes TOU may lower the bar for random hacks by Joe Random. But I'd argue no large organization would serious consider or dare deploy TCP stack with random hacks. I know we have a very high bar to pass at Google. This should limit the impact of bad TCP stacks on the Internet. If we continue to keep up and make timely improvements to the Linux TCP stack, and better yet, to continue to improve technology like UML and LKL to make it easy for folks to access great technologies in the Linux kernel stack and deploy them in the userland, it will probably take away all the motivations for people to do their own random hacks. Best, Jerry
