From: "David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Digest, Vol 30, Issue 38
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 14:29:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC=tZ0oBsgcN1fufAAt6acJNU0L0fpDeKNqwLdQZV5ciZfiJPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.529.1695468547.1074.starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
"QUIC seems an interesting project, and I guess only the decades ahead
of us will tell of it becomes a raging success."
QUIC is the transport protocol for HTTP/3, which may or may not
completely replace HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.x, eventually. It certainly has
performance advantages (lower latency loading websites), although some
argue that users are not really aware of the difference.
Here you can monitor the march or QUIC and HTTP/3 on websites worldwide:
https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-http3
When I started to check this a couple of years ago, it was 5-6%, now
is 26% and growing slowly but steadily.
IMHO, one of the coolest things of QUIC is the connection migration feature:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DlMI_3MOxnWarvEVfzKxFqmD7c-u1cYG/view?pli=1
Regards,
David
> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 14:22:58 +1000
> From: Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net>
> To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] APNIC56 last week
> Message-ID: <83e9b47895d019d282e21bbdd4f4cc57@ausics.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Vint,
>
> On 23/09/2023 11:47, Vint Cerf wrote:
>
>> Noel, IPv4 is only managing to work because it is NATted - going to
>> IPv6 let's us get back to point-to-point in either direction including
>> rendezvous.
>> The present IPv4 situation is NOT good - people are paying $35-50 per
>> IPv4 address to acquire or even to lease them. For all practical
>> purposes, IPv4 has run out.
>>
>> vint
>
> Oh I agree it's not a good situation, but my point was it's still most
> dominant 30 years after they claimed we had about 5 years, it's like the
> little boy who cried wolf, if they held off the hysterics until it was
> proved imminent, I've no doubt the update would be greater and taken
> more seriously (I've used IPv6 for over 10 years myself), but the global
> low uptake is what causes ISP's and Telco's to use CGNAT, its free and
> plentiful, so it still wont be laid to rest for a while yet.
>
> IPv6 is only 4% of traffic that hits my Mail Servers, it's less than 1%
> on my Web servers.
>
> Just like TCP, it wont be going anywhere, not quietly, and if it were
> to, likely be long after I'm gone, QUIC seems an interesting project,
> and I guess only the decades ahead of us will tell of it becomes a
> raging success.
>
> Cheers
parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-23 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <mailman.529.1695468547.1074.starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAC=tZ0oBsgcN1fufAAt6acJNU0L0fpDeKNqwLdQZV5ciZfiJPA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=davidfdzp@gmail.com \
--cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox