quinn VS s2n-quic

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.

Yes, the Kani CI time for s2n-quic dropped by more than 25% with Kani 0.28.

Packet parsing is a great application for this type of testing. We've used bolero/Kani in a bunch of s2n-quic's codec implementations - example.

It's definitely a valid question, with there being a lot of great QUIC implementations out there. We do believe, though, s2n-quic has a lot to offer with a high level of security, testing, performance, and features. Given that s2n-quic will eventually be integrated into AWS Services, we ultimately need direct ownership of fundamental libraries like s2n-quic, s2n-tls, etc. to be able to maintain that high level of security and performance for our customers.