[halfteatree]

> First AMP and now QUIC.

Um, pretty sure QUIC was in the pipeline a few years longer than AMP. Besides, it's literally a protocol in the network stack -- would you say IPv6 is an enemy of the web and underlying internet?

Please stop the needless fear mongering.

[gsich]

Do you even know the OSI-model? Yes QUIC is a protocol, but not on the same layer as IPv6. So the comparison is useless.

[halfteatree]

It is one layer above IPv6, but what difference does that make? It's an improvement over an existing protocol to solve real problems.

I don't think anyone can really know the OSI model. I know I frequently use HTTP as a Transport Layer protocol myself, so you got me there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[minikites]

I pasted that initial quote ("Google has the largest QUIC deployment...") to point out that Google has a significant advantage in owning the most popular web browser and also most of the top-tier web properties in Google search, Gmail, and YouTube. Because they control the whole chain from browser to content, they can release things that make those experiences better for Chrome users (using QUIC) at the expense of non-Chrome users (who get worse TCP performance until everyone else completely adopts QUIC). Then, toss up some banner ads for non-Chrome users who visit YouTube saying, "YouTube too slow? Switch to Chrome!"

>would you say IPv6 is an enemy of the web and underlying internet?

If IPv6 made IPv4 performance worse and was pushed by one company who controls both the browser and the most popular web content, yes, I would.

[wmf]

Everything you say is true, yet... the Google approach works and the others don't. If our choice is free and mostly-open protocols from Google or using HTTP/1.1 + TLS 1.1 + TCP w/ CUBIC + IPv4 w/ NAT forever, Google doesn't sound too bad.

This is related to the AV1 vs. MPEG discussion from the other day where people pointed out that we basically have a a choice between free codecs developed by Google/Netflix or codecs that suck you dry from legal fees.