But supporting SCTP has to start somewhere ? Why?
Posted Nov 19, 2009 5:55 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: Routing
Parent article: Reducing HTTP latency with SPDY
The whole thing will have to fallback to TCP when some firewall
(NOT router!) is stupid.
For most people out there router is this thing connected to cable modem.
Even if it's technically not router, but firewall with NAT. If SCTP needs
an update for that piece of plastic it's DOA and not worth talking
The question is, do you want a technically-sound solution
(which probably involves IPv6: no NAT there), or a hack which will
ultimately delay implementing that solution?
Wrong questions. The real question: do you want a solution or
handwaving? If the "techically-sound solution" is ievitable (i.e.: other
proposed solution either don't work at all or are just as invasive) - it
has a chance. If there are some other solution which is worse but works
with existing infrastructure... then "techically-sound solutoion" can be
written off immediately.
I suppose Google is all about hacks, at least in this area.
Witness Android. :-P
Yup. Witness system which works and is selling by millions (albeit by
one-digit millions at this point) and compare it to "techically-sound
solutions" which are scrapped and gone...
Google is about realistic solutions, not pipe-dreams. IPv6 is acceptable
even if it has this stupid fascination with "technically-sound solution"
approach - because there are things IPv4 just can't do. But STCP... I'm not
sure it'll ever be used but I'm realistically sure it'll not be used in the
next 10 years.
to post comments)