Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rektide 1854 days ago
It will never ever be included. That's not how protocols & specs work. They are modular and build off of one another. The linked article includes some examples: RFC9001 is "Using TLS to secure QUIC", RFC9002 is "QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control." These are expected capabilities of most users, but they are still defined out of the core spec.

Similarly, there is steady progress on a multipath extension to QUIC[1]. There is also a website https://multipath-quic.org [2] covering advances in multipath quic. Multipath capability, like TLS, like the standard congestion control, will never be included in RFC9000 / QUIC core. But it's advancing.

And, I'd guess, based off the connection-less nature of QUIC (and it's UDP underpinnings), it stands a good chance of being significantly better than MTCP.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deconinck-quic-multip...

[2] https://multipath-quic.org/

1 comments

Sorry for incorrect wording. I don't need multipath to be present in the same spec as the QUIC core. What I meant is when I will be able to have slightly less then 150Mbps over QUIC for e.g. a single file if I have 3x50Mbps connections. MPTCP can do that for me, even if the server doesn't support it as I can use something like OpenMPTCPRouter [1]. I hope multipath QUIC will be able to do that too, but it's not ready for production use yet, if I understand correctly.

[1] https://www.openmptcprouter.com/

Seems like there are quite a few options that show up pretty quickly when searching for multipath udp e.g: https://github.com/angt/glorytun

Would that work for you?

Posted a detailed explanation slightly above... Glorytun will not work to well with TCP b/c it doesn't provide separate congestion control for each path like MPTCP does.