/g/ - Technology
install openbsd
[Make a Post]It's pretty cool how it supports the ability to maintain a connection even when switching networks. Having to break and restart the connection is a flaw when the device maintains connection to the internet during the whole time.
>>7795
Probably. But even if it's not botnet,
it's still gonna be more garbage 90's protocol design and 90's platform design just like all web standards up til now.
>>7820
>It's pretty cool how it supports the ability to maintain a connection even when switching networks.
useless bullshit
>Having to break and restart the connection is a flaw when the device maintains connection to the internet during the whole time.
Actually most websites break from this because they are garbage made by garbage people (gib money no time fo fix bugs need more ads). Does nanochan (basically the only real working website left on the internet right now) break when you change IP address?
Probably. But even if it's not botnet,
it's still gonna be more garbage 90's protocol design and 90's platform design just like all web standards up til now.
>>7820
>It's pretty cool how it supports the ability to maintain a connection even when switching networks.
useless bullshit
>Having to break and restart the connection is a flaw when the device maintains connection to the internet during the whole time.
Actually most websites break from this because they are garbage made by garbage people (gib money no time fo fix bugs need more ads). Does nanochan (basically the only real working website left on the internet right now) break when you change IP address?
HTTP allegedly drops TCP, which is mostly good. TCP is some patchy stuff which is fine if you want to hack some network shit together quickly but there is no excuse to use it if you can afford to design and implement your own protocol based on UDP or whatever.
>>7970
UDP is cancerous kike shit with no verification of packets. They want to keep the goyim in the dark about whether the information got through so that when they (((censor))) redpills they can just tell us "Oy vey goy, it's UDP's fault, not (((ours)))!"
Fuck (((UDP))).
UDP is cancerous kike shit with no verification of packets. They want to keep the goyim in the dark about whether the information got through so that when they (((censor))) redpills they can just tell us "Oy vey goy, it's UDP's fault, not (((ours)))!"
Fuck (((UDP))).
>>7973
Back to israel with you chaim. Non-whites lack intelligence and creativity, and by there very nature can't be funny. Only the Aryan race has the capacity to enjoy humor.
Back to israel with you chaim. Non-whites lack intelligence and creativity, and by there very nature can't be funny. Only the Aryan race has the capacity to enjoy humor.
>>7970
My only concern with HTTP3 is the complexity of implementation. Is it hard to write a library that handles it compared to HTTP/2? Otherwise it's a high price to pay just to shelf TCP.
My only concern with HTTP3 is the complexity of implementation. Is it hard to write a library that handles it compared to HTTP/2? Otherwise it's a high price to pay just to shelf TCP.
>>7979
This is why they are breaking it off into QUIC and HTTP. So that you don't have to rewrite the transport protocol to implement the application protocol. This makes it comparable to reimplementing TCP, which is also difficult AIUI.
The relevant doc for HTTP over QUIC (ie HTTP/3) is here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-23
This doc alone is much shorter than the doc for HTTP/2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540 )
I think the question comes down to whether you think TCP needs replacement. I don't follow transport protocols, but it seems difficult to imagine that we got it right in the first try, and there's nothing else to add there. Encrypting all the state information will make it harder for glowers to spy on you. One-way handshake will cut down latency a lot. As >>7820 says, you get to move connections between networks.
Maybe if someone can argue that QUIC is so many times worse than TCP in terms of complexity I would buy it. Until then, it seems to be straight advantageous.
This is why they are breaking it off into QUIC and HTTP. So that you don't have to rewrite the transport protocol to implement the application protocol. This makes it comparable to reimplementing TCP, which is also difficult AIUI.
The relevant doc for HTTP over QUIC (ie HTTP/3) is here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-23
This doc alone is much shorter than the doc for HTTP/2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540 )
I think the question comes down to whether you think TCP needs replacement. I don't follow transport protocols, but it seems difficult to imagine that we got it right in the first try, and there's nothing else to add there. Encrypting all the state information will make it harder for glowers to spy on you. One-way handshake will cut down latency a lot. As >>7820 says, you get to move connections between networks.
Maybe if someone can argue that QUIC is so many times worse than TCP in terms of complexity I would buy it. Until then, it seems to be straight advantageous.
>>7983
>I think the question comes down to whether you think TCP needs replacement
I'm sure people who have clients connecting via mobile internet want to for their infrastructure, since it's the only device in use by an average person that switches networks often. The only reason I'd genuinely be interested in a new protocol is if it has DDoS mitigations in place. There are security considerations in the QUIC draft regarding that and other attacks like slow loris, so it's at least a step up from TCP in that way. That's not to say TCP is shit, just that, in the time when it was drafted, large-scale network attacks were not even a tangible concept.
>Until then, it seems to be straight advantageous.
I don't think I know a single modern IT improvement that is 100% advantageous, but we'll see. As a Tor user, you should immediately be concerned about this, for example. Tor does not support UDP at all so I don't know how they are going to deal with this. If this gets mainstream adoption, you'll either have to ride the back of the bus with the other HTTP/TCP leftovers or use onion services only. I'd say I2P, but it's not designed to be a window into the clearnet.
>I think the question comes down to whether you think TCP needs replacement
I'm sure people who have clients connecting via mobile internet want to for their infrastructure, since it's the only device in use by an average person that switches networks often. The only reason I'd genuinely be interested in a new protocol is if it has DDoS mitigations in place. There are security considerations in the QUIC draft regarding that and other attacks like slow loris, so it's at least a step up from TCP in that way. That's not to say TCP is shit, just that, in the time when it was drafted, large-scale network attacks were not even a tangible concept.
>Until then, it seems to be straight advantageous.
I don't think I know a single modern IT improvement that is 100% advantageous, but we'll see. As a Tor user, you should immediately be concerned about this, for example. Tor does not support UDP at all so I don't know how they are going to deal with this. If this gets mainstream adoption, you'll either have to ride the back of the bus with the other HTTP/TCP leftovers or use onion services only. I'd say I2P, but it's not designed to be a window into the clearnet.
[Catalog][Overboard][Update]
[Reply]0 files, 11 replies
https://www.howtogeek.com/442047/how-http3-and-quic-will-speed-up-your-web-browsing/
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/cWArc