CloudFront 支援 HTTP/3

雖然 HTTP/3 還沒有進到 Standard Track,但看到 CloudFront 宣佈支援 HTTP/3 了:「New – HTTP/3 Support for Amazon CloudFront」。

只要在 CloudFront 的 console 上勾選起來就可以了:

看了看 RFC 9114: HTTP/3 文件裡的描述,client 可以試著建立 UDP 版本的 QUIC 連線,但要有機制在失敗時回去用 TCPHTTP/2 或是 HTTP/1.1

A client MAY attempt access to a resource with an "https" URI by resolving the host identifier to an IP address, establishing a QUIC connection to that address on the indicated port (including validation of the server certificate as described above), and sending an HTTP/3 request message targeting the URI to the server over that secured connection. Unless some other mechanism is used to select HTTP/3, the token "h3" is used in the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN; see [RFC7301]) extension during the TLS handshake.

Connectivity problems (e.g., blocking UDP) can result in a failure to establish a QUIC connection; clients SHOULD attempt to use TCP-based versions of HTTP in this case.

另外一條路是在 TCP 連線時透過 HTTP header 告訴瀏覽器升級:

An HTTP origin can advertise the availability of an equivalent HTTP/3 endpoint via the Alt-Svc HTTP response header field or the HTTP/2 ALTSVC frame ([ALTSVC]) using the "h3" ALPN token.


Alt-Svc: h3=":50781"

然後 client 就可以跑上 HTTP/3:

On receipt of an Alt-Svc record indicating HTTP/3 support, a client MAY attempt to establish a QUIC connection to the indicated host and port; if this connection is successful, the client can send HTTP requests using the mapping described in this document.

另外在 FAQ 裡面有提到啟用 HTTP/3 是不另外計費的,就照著本來的 request 費用算:

Q. Is there a separate charge for enabling HTTP/3?

No, there is no separate charge for enabling HTTP/3 on Amazon CloudFront distributions. HTTP/3 requests will be charged at the request pricing rates as per your pricing plan.


QUIC 成為標準,從 RFC 8999 到 RFC 9002

前幾天的新聞了,這兩天 FastlyCloudflare 也都發文章出來了,QUIC 成為標準:「QUIC is now RFC 9000」、「QUIC Version 1 is live on Cloudflare」。

主要是這兩家都發稿宣傳他們的平台都支援 QUIC 了,接下來可以等一些測試報告,看看在 web 這種已經有不少複雜的 workaround 機制下,TCP BBR 環境的 HTTP/2 跟 QUIC 環境會有多少差異... 記得 QUIC 也是 BBR-based 的演算法。

在 QUIC 下的 https 協定會走 443/udp,如果防火牆是預設阻擋所有連線,然後逐條開放的話,需要另外開這組設定。

另外就是等 nginx 支援了,在「NGINX QUIC Preview」這邊有些資料,然後「">nginx-quic: log」裡面可以看到東西,裡面不少 commit 只是跟 nginx 本家同步而已,不過還是可以看到一些跟 QUIC 有關的...

HTTP/3 (QUIC) 的反面看法

這篇整理了 HTTP/3 (QUIC) 的反面看法,算是常見的疑慮都列出來了:「QUIC and HTTP/3 : Too big to fail?!」。

其實大多都是使用 UDP 而導致的問題:

  • 因為 UDP 導致 firewall 可能沒開,以及可能會需要等 timeout 走回 TCP 的問題。
  • 因為 UDP 變成很多事情在 userland 處理,而導致的 CPU 使用率比使用 TCP 的 TLS 1.2/1.3 高很多。
  • 因為 UDP 導致 amplification attack 的安全性問題,以及對應的 workaround 產生的頻寬議題。
  • 由於 UDP 會需要自己控制擁塞,等於是在 UDP 上面又重做了一次 TCP congestion algorithm,而且因為重作所以得考慮與 TCP 搶資源的公平性。

整篇文章算是整理了一般對 HTTP/3 的疑慮,之後如果有進展的話,可以再拿出來當 checklist 再確認有哪些有改善...

HTTP-over-QUIC 將變成 HTTP/3

cURL 作者那邊看到的,之前 HTTP-over-QUIC 的名稱實在太長,想要找個短一點的名字來用,這邊算是把命字確定下來了:「HTTP/3」。從文章後的說明就可以看出來:

No more confusion. HTTP/3 is the coming new HTTP version that uses QUIC for transport!

不過這代表 HTTP/3 需要 443/udp 了,之後防火牆預設應該要打開...

Cloudflare 決定支援 QUIC

Cloudflare 決定支援 QUIC 了:「Get a head start with QUIC」、「The QUICening」。

QUIC 目前被使用的範圍比較小 (相較於 HTTP/2):

  • 主流瀏覽器內只有 Google Chrome 有支援 QUIC,其他主流瀏覽器都沒有支援。不過 Google Chrome 也夠大了...
  • 因為是走 UDP,所以防火牆要另外開。

而 Google Chrome 上面可以安裝「HTTP/2 and SPDY indicator」看到連線的狀態。雖然套件名稱沒有 QUIC,但實際上是可以看出 QUIC 的,基本上 Google 的服務應該都是走 QUIC。


在「AES-GCM-SIV: Specification and Analysis」這邊看到 AES-GCM-SIV 的作者自己投稿上去的資料,是個已經被放進 BoringSSL 並且在 QUIC 上使用的演算法:

We remark that AES-GCM-SIV is already integrated into Google's BoringSSL library \cite{BoringSSL}, and its deployment for ticket encryption in QUIC \cite{QUIC} is underway.

在 RFC 上的說明解釋了這個演算法的目的是希望當 nonce 沒有被正確實作時仍然可以有比 AES-GCM 強的保護:

This memo specifies two authenticated encryption algorithms that are nonce misuse-resistant - that is that they do not fail catastrophically if a nonce is repeated.

在 128 bits 的情況下,加密的速度大約是 AES-GCM 的 2/3 (在都有硬體加速的情況下),但解密的速度則與 AES-GCM 相當:

For encryption, it is slower than AES-GCM, because achieving nonce-misuse resistance requires, by definition, two (serialized) passes over the data. Nevertheless, optimized implementations run GCM-SIV (for 128-bit keys) at less than one cycle per byte on modern processors (roughly 2/3 of the speed of nonce-respecting AES-GCM). On the other hand, GCM-SIV decryption runs at almost the same speed as AES-GCM.

不過這就是 trade-off 了,如果 nonce 有正確被實作的話,其實不需要這個...

QUIC 的進展

在「New Work in Seoul」這邊看到 QUIC 的消息:

The QUIC working group has just been chartered, and will meet for the first time in Seoul. This working group is taking Google’s pre-standardization QUIC protocol that has been deployed in production for several years, and will use it as a starting point to develop a UDP-based, stream-multiplexing, encrypted transport protocol with standardized congestion control, TLS 1.3 by default, a mapping for HTTP/2 semantics over QUIC, and multipath extensions. This is the IETF’s first standardized always-encrypted transport protocol, so careful consideration of applicability and operational capabilities will be key for success.

IETFDatatracker 上也可以看到記錄了:「QUIC (quic)」,最下面的 Milestones 可以看到第一階段的目標是在明年二月把基本的協定都定下來,之後再加東西上去。

Google 研發出的 BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control

Google 針對 TCP 的 congestion control 研究出了新的方法,是個純 sender-side 的演匴法,可以讓現有的 internet 直接換上去使用:「[net-next,14/14] tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control」。

在 long-lived TCP connection 愈來愈普及後 (像是 HTTP/2),TCP 連線的最佳化可以用統計模型來計算,這也就是 BBR 的想法:

In a nutshell, BBR creates an explicit model of the network pipe by sequentially probing the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. On the arrival of each ACK, BBR derives the current delivery rate of the last round trip, and feeds it through a windowed max-filter to estimate the bottleneck bandwidth. Conversely it uses a windowed min-filter to estimate the round trip propagation delay. The max-filtered bandwidth and min-filtered RTT estimates form BBR's model of the network pipe.

不過 QUIC 不是也開始有進展了嗎?(參考「Google Chrome 52 預設開啟了更快的 QUIC (被戲稱為 TCP/2)」這篇)

感覺 QUIC 解決的比較徹底,不過 443/udp 的 firewall 問題的確也是個需要時間解決的課題...

Google Chrome 52 預設開啟了更快的 QUIC (被戲稱為 TCP/2)

在「Google’s QUIC protocol: moving the web from TCP to UDP」這篇前半部在介紹 QUIC (走 UDP 的 TLS),後半部則提到了幾個重點。

首先是 Google Chrome 從 52 開始 (也就是現在的 stable 版) 預設會開啟 QUIC (以前是只有 Google 自家的 domain),這讓採用的價值變高:

Since no one has QUIC support enabled by default in the client, you're probably still safe to run it and enable QUIC in your own browser(s). (Update: since Chrome 52, everyone has QUIC enabled by default, even to non-whitelisted domains)

再來是 QUIC 走 UDP/443:

Well, if we want to allow the QUIC protocol, we will need to allow 443/UDP too.

同時因為走的 Protocol 跟以前不同,所以我可以跑另外一隻 Server 服務使用者,目前只有 Caddy 有支援,雖然是實驗性質:

Right now, the only webserver that can get you QUIC is Caddy since version 0.9.

Both client-side and server-side support is considered experimental, so it's up to you to run it.

至少可以先把 firewall 打開了...

Google 的 QUIC 擴大實驗

QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections) 是 Google 發明的協定,主要是希望改善 TCP + TLS 的反應速度,目前是用來加速 Google Chrome 與 Google server 之間的連線。

與 SPDY 或 HTTP/2 不同的地方在於使用了 UDP,這降低了 TCP packet loss 造成的壅塞現象,以及 TCP 3-way handshake 的成本,而這兩點在行動平台上都特別明顯。

依照最新的說法,目前 Google Chrome 連到 Google server 大約有一半的連線會走 QUIC:「A QUIC update on Google’s experimental transport」。

Today, roughly half of all requests from Chrome to Google servers are served over QUIC and we’re continuing to ramp up QUIC traffic, eventually making it the default transport from Google clients — both Chrome and mobile apps — to Google servers.

而在 YouTube 的改善也很大:

These benefits are even more apparent for video services like YouTube. Users report 30% fewer rebuffers when watching videos over QUIC. This means less time spent staring at the spinner and more time watching videos.