SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The next version of HTTP won’t be using TCP
In its continued efforts to make Web networking faster, Google has been working on an experimental network protocol named QUIC: "Quick UDP Internet Connections." QUIC abandons TCP, instead using its sibling protocol UDP (User Datagram Protocol). UDP is the "opposite" of TCP; it's unreliable (data that is sent from one end may never be received by the other end, and the other end has no way of knowing that something has gone missing), and it is unordered (data sent later can overtake data sent earlier, arriving jumbled up). UDP is, however, very simple, and new protocols are often built on top of UDP.
QUIC reinstates the reliability and ordering that TCP has but without introducing the same number of round trips and latency. For example, if a client is reconnecting to a server, the client can send important encryption data with the very first packet, enabling the server to resurrect the old connection, using the same encryption as previously negotiated, without requiring any additional round trips.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF—the industry group that collaboratively designs network protocols) has been working to create a standardized version of QUIC, which currently deviates significantly from Google's original proposal. The IETF also wants to create a version of HTTP that uses QUIC, previously referred to as HTTP-over-QUIC or HTTP/QUIC. HTTP-over-QUIC isn't, however, HTTP/2 over QUIC; it's a new, updated version of HTTP built for QUIC.
Accordingly, Mark Nottingham, chair of both the HTTP working group and the QUIC working group for IETF, proposed to rename HTTP-over-QUIC to HTTP/3, and the proposal seems to have been broadly accepted. The next version of HTTP will have QUIC as an essential, integral feature, such that HTTP/3 will always use QUIC as its network protocol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:59AM (4 children)
Wut? IPv6 makes NAT a non-issue by having a unique global address on every machine.
Any reason (even no reason) is a good reason to intentionally break NAT. The faster we break NAT, the faster we get the piece of shit consumer ISPs to stop dragging their worthless feet and properly implement IPv6 like they were supposed to over a decade ago.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:32AM
Meh. When pretty much all problems with NAT are already easily solved, your hatred is irrational.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:37PM (2 children)
No, the globally unique address isn't required. All that's required is a locally unique address.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:32AM (1 child)
No, at least one globally unique address is required, otherwise to get from locally unique and globally unique and back, your Network Address [is] Translated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:47AM
Yeah, one globally unique address... on the router, just like IPv4.