I’m mostly concerned with cross+datacenter use, but it follows that you would preferable use the same communication pattern for hosts on the same datacenter also.
There are various concepts for datacenter use, such as Kubernetes, but it isn't high performance, and it often isn’t cross datacenter. Sometimes you can rely on private IP addresses being private, but that doesn’t always extend to multiple datacenters of the same vendor, and certainly not multi-vendors. You can add a VPN to span multiple datacenters, but it can be a complex setup without clear performance metrics, and they can potentially add security holes by introducing a DMZ. Also, A VPN implementation could possibly benefit from multipath QUIC. A simple use case is connecting to a database server in a different location. If for no other reason than geographical redundancy. A TCP connection is far from ideal for database communication where you can have many concurrent queries. For time sensitive data, or bandwidth constrained data, or both, you want to use all the bandwidth that you can. Another use case is cross platform messaging services. Mikkel On 10 November 2020 at 16.03.29, Lars Eggert ([email protected]) wrote: Hi, On 2020-11-10, at 16:57, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > There are usually no NATs across datacenter hosts, and only firewalls that you choose to set up on your own. > Such hosts may have multiple ethenet interfaces to maximize bandwidth. Or there may be private and public IP addresses, billed differently. sure. But a datacenter-internal use of QUIC wasn't one of the scenarios that were brought up during the interim - those were IIRC all about use across the Internet. (Which is what the WG overall has focused on so far.) I'd be curious to what benefits you see for using QUIC within a datacenter, given the performance gap that will still continue to exist for some time compared to TCP, and given that MPTCP hasn't really gotten traction there, either, even when that use case was investigated for it pretty early on? Thanks, Lars
