I'll generally note that the TCP stack in middleboxes, which frequently terminate connections, may not be as state-of-the-art :-)
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:26 PM Ian Swett <ianswett= [email protected]> wrote: > Given TCP TFO is rarely enabled, IETF QUIC without 0-RTT still typically > saves a round trip vs TCP+TLS 1.3. > > The YouTube improvements are believed to be due to the lack of > retransmission ambiguity and extra ACK blocks vs TCP w/SACK. In the > presence of packet policers, both can be quite advantageous. > > Note that these are controlled experiments, so they include the metrics > from users who had QUIC enabled, but ended up using TCP due to not yet > caching Alt-Svc, UDP blockage or some other reason. > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:42 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks David. I'm intrigued by your performance numbers. You say there's >> no 0RTT and I've always thought of you guys running a pretty >> state-of-the-art TCP stack. Is this just HOL blocking, or is there >> something else? >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:50 AM David Schinazi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi QUIC WG, >>> >>> We would like to share an important announcement from Chrome: >>> >>> https://blog.chromium.org/2020/10/chrome-is-deploying-http3-and-ietf-quic.html >>> >>> In particular, we'd like to highlight two points of interest to the WG: >>> >>> 1) Chrome now supports IETF QUIC by default (h3-29). >>> >>> 2) Since the subsequent IETF drafts 30 and 31 do not have >>> compatibility-breaking >>> changes, we currently are not planning to change the over-the-wire >>> identifier. What >>> this means is that while we'll keep tracking changes in the IETF >>> specification, we >>> will be deploying them under the h3-29/0xff00001d name. We therefore >>> recommend >>> that servers keep support for h3-29 until the final RFCs are complete if >>> they wish to >>> interoperate with Chrome. However, if the IETF were to make >>> compatibility-breaking >>> changes in a future draft, Chrome will revisit this decision. >>> >>> Full details in the link above. >>> >>> Cheers >>> David >>> >>
