30

While Larry was producing most of the content for the "Request/Reponse" chapter for the next edition of our book, I took the lead on writing a section on QUIC, since I have closely followed its development.

Our expectation is that the role of QUIC will be about as important as that of TCP in the coming years, which means it warrants more substantial coverage than we provided in the last edition. So I dug a bit deeper into the bits and bytes of QUIC than I have previously, with a goal of bringing the coverage up to par with our TCP coverage. In addition to reading through the RFCs, I found lots of good information in the original QUIC design spec as well as some conference publications on the design and evaluation of SPDY (predecessor of HTTP/2) and QUIC.

One rather trivial thing that makes it harder for me to get to grips with QUIC is the fact that its RFCs (four of them, spanning hundreds of pages) lack pictures of the packet headers. The rationale for this, I believe, is that QUIC makes extensive use of fields that are variable in length and frequently not aligned on 32-bit boundaries, which makes packet header pictures a bit complicated and less tidy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago

QUIC works hand-in-hand with HTTP/3's multiplexed connections, allowing multiple streams of data to reach all the endpoints independently, and hence independent of packet losses involving other streams. In contrast, HTTP/2, which is carried over TCP, can suffer head-of-line-blocking delays if multiple streams are multiplexed on a TCP connection and any of the TCP packets on that connection are delayed or lost.

SCTP was going to do that too. It hasn't seen much uptake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol

Features of SCTP include:

  • Delivery of chunks within independent streams eliminates unnecessary head-of-line blocking, as opposed to TCP byte-stream delivery.
[-] who@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

SCTP was going to do that too. It hasn’t seen much uptake.

SCTP has a major obstacle in that the internet is full of middleboxes that will never support it, because it's not TCP or UDP. QUIC deliberately addresses that by being plain old UDP. Routers, firewalls, etc. don't have to know anything about it in order to handle it.

[-] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

SCTP has 2 flaws:

  • Lack of a good incremental adoption given ASIC middlewares
  • Lack of real world data at scale (which QUIC had thanks to SPDY thanks to Google and Google Chrome)
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
30 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

42736 readers
176 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS