←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 1 comments | 19 Oct 24 21:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.278s | source
Show context
jrpelkonen ◴[19 Oct 24 22:21 UTC] No.41891238[source]▶
Curl creator/maintainer Daniel Stenberg blogged about HTTP/3 in curl a few months ago: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2024/06/10/http-3-in-curl-mid-20...

One of the things he highlighted was the higher CPU utilization of HTTP/3, to the point where CPU can limit throughput.

I wonder how much of this is due to the immaturity of the implementations, and how much this is inherit due to way QUIC was designed?

replies(4): >>41891693 #>>41891790 #>>41891813 #>>41891887 #
therealmarv ◴[20 Oct 24 00:17 UTC] No.41891887[source]▶
"immaturity of the implementations" is a funny wording here. QUIC was created because there is absolutely NO WAY that all internet hardware (including all middleware etc) out there will support a new TCP or TLS standard. So QUIC is an elegant solution to get a new transport standard on top of legacy internet hardware (on top of UDP).

In an ideal World we would create a new TCP and TLS standard and replace and/or update all internet routers and hardware everywhere World Wide so that it is implemented with less CPU utilization ;)

replies(1): >>41891927 #
api ◴[20 Oct 24 00:28 UTC] No.41891927[source]▶
A major mistake in IP’s design was to allow middle boxes. The protocol should have had some kind of minimal header auth feature to intentionally break them. It wouldn’t have to be strong crypto, just enough to make middle boxes impractical.

It would have forced IPv6 migration immediately (no NAT) and forced endpoints to be secured with local firewalls and better software instead of middle boxes.

The Internet would be so much simpler, faster, and more capable. Peer to peer would be trivial. Everything would just work. Protocol innovation would be possible.

Of course tech is full of better roads not taken. We are prisoners of network effects and accidents of history freezing ugly hacks into place.

replies(7): >>41892225 #>>41892686 #>>41892920 #>>41893968 #>>41894183 #>>41894543 #>>41895155 #
1. kbolino ◴[20 Oct 24 13:13 UTC] No.41895155[source]▶
The only mechanism I can think of that could have been used for that purpose, and was publicly known about (to at least some extent) in the late 1970s, would be RSA. That is strong crypto, or at least we know it is when used properly today, but it's unlikely the authors of IP would have known about it. Even if they did, the logistical challenges of key distribution would have sunk its use, and they would almost certainly have fallen into one of the traps in implementing it that took years to discover, and the key sizes that would have been practical for use ca 1980 would be easy to break by the end of the 1990s.

Simply put, this isn't a road not taken, it's a road that didn't exist.