nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google's QUIC
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:00:08 -0400
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan () gmail com> wrote:
"In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has the potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a client, to be served on a single server." - Google I'll drink the juice
i don't think much juice is required... doesn't that just say that the same 'flow' will follow the same path through the network? and that most/all (save a10/yahoo!) loadbalancers just LB based on 5-tuple (at best)? so keeping things in a single flow/stream/5-tuple will drop packets from one host deterministicaly on a single other host at the far side?
Current thread:
- Re: Google's QUIC, (continued)
- Re: Google's QUIC Darius Jahandarie (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Tony Finch (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 30)
- Re: Google's QUIC Saku Ytti (Jun 30)
- Re: Google's QUIC Jim Popovitch (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Octavio Alvarez (Jun 29)
- Re: Google's QUIC Leo Bicknell (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC cb.list6 (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Phil Fagan (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Phil Fagan (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC joel jaeggli (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Nikolay Shopik (Jun 28)
- Re: Google's QUIC Michael Thomas (Jun 28)