[paulsutter]

TCP Reno Vegas etc all addressed congestion control with various ideas, but were all doomed by the academic downward spiral pissing contest.

QUIC is real and works great, and they sidestepped all of that and just built it and tuned it and has basically won. As for QUIC "sending more parts of the page in parallel" yes thats what I referred to re head of line blocking in TCP.

[drewg123]

There is nothing magic about the congestion control in QUIC. It shares a lot with TCP BBR.

Unlike TLS over TCP, QUIC is still not able to be offloaded to NICs. And most stacks are in userspace. So it is horrifically expensive in terms of watts/byte or cycles/byte sent for a CDN workload (something like 8x as a expensive the last time I looked), and its primarily used and advocated for by people who have metrics for latency, but not server side costs.

[cyberax]

> Unlike TLS over TCP, QUIC is still not able to be offloaded to NICs.

That's not quite true. You can offload QUIC connection steering just fine, as long as your NICs can do hardware encryption. It's actually _easier_ because you can never get a QUIC datagram split across multiple physical packets (barring the IP-level fragmentation).

The only real difference from TCP is the encryption for ACKs.