quinn VS neqo

Since it lives on top of UDP, I believe all you need is SOCK_DGRAM, right? The rest of QUIC can be in a userspace library ergonomically designed for your programming language e.g. https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn - and can interoperate with others who have made different choices.

Alternately, if you need even higher performance, DPDK gives the abstractions you'd need; see e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3565477.3569154 on performance characteristics.

> Making things thread safe for runtime-agnostic utilities like WebSocket is yet another price we pay for making everything multi-threaded by default. The standard way of doing what I'm doing in my code above would be to spawn one of the loops on a separate background task, which could land on a separate thread, meaning we must do all that synchronization to manage reading and writing to a socket from different threads for no good reason.

Why so? Libraries like quinn[1] define "no IO" crate to define runtime-agnostic protocol implementation. In this way we won't suffer by forcing ourselves using synchronization primitives.

Also, IMO it's relatively easy to use Send-bounded future in non-Send(i.o.w. single-threaded) runtime environment, but it's almost impossible to do opposite. Ecosystem users can freely use single threaded async runtime, but ecosystem providers should not. If you want every users to only use single threaded runtime, it's a major loss for the Rust ecosystem.

Typechecked Send/Sync bounds are one of the holy grails that Rust provides. Albeit it's overkill to use multithreaded async runtimes for most users, we should not abandon them because it opens an opportunity for high-end users who might seek Rust for their high-performance backends.

[1]: https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn

quicssh-rs is quicssh rust implementation. It is based on quinn and tokio

Regarding Quinn, I had a blast this week resurrecting an old PR. Looking forward to the next!

By studying u/djcu/hachyderm.io (and others!) excellent work in Quinn, doing a sans I/O implementation of QUIC https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn we have a way forward.

QUIC isn't web/wasm-compatible because of https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn/issues/1388, so durian wouldn't either since it's built on top of it.

Quinn, as in the implementation of QUIC? https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn

You are right, I am planning to switch the transport to UDP + quic using the awesome QUINN library, https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn .

Hi, I am new to the community, I just started learning rust and created a secure UDP tunnel based on the Quinn library, thanks to Quinn, I didn't need to go into the detail of the QUIC protocol and quickly created a UDP tunnel, and thanks to the BBR congestion control algorithm it uses, the tunnel performs quite well with lousy and long fat network, I didn't do any benchmark, but it performs a lot better (higher throughput with LFN) than most of other TCP tunnel implementations I used before.

Looks like Mozilla is currently working on implementing `sendmmsg` and `recvmmsg` use in neqo (Mozilla's QUIC implementation) [1].

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/neqo/issues/1693

Neqo (Mozilla) and Quiche (Cloudflare) both implement QUIC and HTTP/3. I believe they are both developing an implementation of WebTransport.

neqo

Mozilla has a Rust QUIC implementation (one of three good ones in Rust) https://github.com/mozilla/neqo

I'm not sure why it's not used here.

As an code hobbyist I'm working on an opensource project where I would be happy to use QUIC. I did a little research and found Quinn and Quiche but also the Mozilla's implementation for which I couldn't find crate Neqo.

Is it possible to compile quicly cli (referenced in the blog post) with musl instead of glibc. I had to add signal.h and it then compiled successfully but I got illegal instruction segfault when executing cli.

https://github.com/h2o/quicly

There are a few Rust alternatives for QUIC. Anyone tried them and have comments.

https://github.com/cloudflare/quiche

https://github.com/quinn-rs/quinn

https://github.com/mozilla/neqo

The reason is the need to have total flexibility (control). [0]

I reckon to make it as painless as possible to integrate it into Firefox. Also probably a tiny bit of not-invented-here syndrome too :)

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/neqo/issues/81

mozilla/neqo