Advertisement

A First Look at QUIC in the Wild

  • Jan Rüth
  • Ingmar Poese
  • Christoph Dietzel
  • Oliver Hohlfeld
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10771)

Abstract

For the first time since the establishment of TCP and UDP, the Internet transport layer is subject to a major change by the introduction of QUIC. Initiated by Google in 2012, QUIC provides a reliable, connection-oriented low-latency and fully encrypted transport. In this paper, we provide the first broad assessment of QUIC usage in the wild. We monitor the entire IPv4 address space since August 2016 and about 46% of the DNS namespace to detected QUIC-capable infrastructures. Our scans show that the number of QUIC-capable IPs has more than tripled since then to over 617.59 K. We find around 161 K domains hosted on QUIC-enabled infrastructure, but only 15 K of them present valid certificates over QUIC. Second, we analyze one year of traffic traces provided by MAWI, one day of a major European tier-1 ISP and from a large IXP to understand the dominance of QUIC in the Internet traffic mix. We find QUIC to account for 2.6% to 9.1% of the current Internet traffic, depending on the vantage point. This share is dominated by Google pushing up to 42.1% of its traffic via QUIC.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the DFG as part of the CRC 1053 MAKI and SPP 1914 REFLEXES, and by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the ENDEAVOUR project (grant agreement 644960). We would like to thank the network operators at RWTH Aachen University, especially Jens Hektor and Bernd Kohler. We further thank our shepherd Tobias Flach and the anonymous reviewers. Furthermore, we would like to thank Konrad Wolsing for maintaining our changes to the quic-go implementation.

References

  1. 1.
    Active measurements and tools. https://quic.comsys.rwth-aachen.de
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Carlucci, G., et al.: HTTP over UDP: an experimental investigation of QUIC. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Cook, S., et al.: QUIC: better for what and for whom? In: IEEE ICC (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durumeric, Z., et al.: Zmap: Fast internet-wide scanning and its security applications. In: USENIX Security (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischlin, M., Günther, F.: Multi-stage key exchange and the case of Google’s QUIC protocol. In: ACM CCS (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jager, T., et al.: On the security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC against weaknesses in PKCS#1 V1.5 encryption. In: ACM CCS (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakhki, A.M., et al.: Taking a long look at QUIC: an approach for rigorous evaluation of rapidly evolving transport protocols. In: ACM IMC (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langley, A., et al.: The QUIC transport protocol: design and internet-scale deployment. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    LiteSpeed Technologies Inc., LiteSpeed – Release Log. https://www.litespeedtech.com/products/litespeed-web-server/release-log
  12. 12.
    Lychev, R., et al.: How secure and quick is QUIC? Provable security and performance analyses. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MAWI Working Group Traffic Archive. http://mawi.nezu.wide.ad.jp/mawi/
  14. 14.
    Public Interest Registry. Zone File Access. http://pir.org/
  15. 15.
    Radhakrishnan, S., et al.: TCP fast open. In: ACM CoNEXT (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raiciu, C., et al.: How hard can it be? designing and implementing a deployable multipath TCP. In: NSDI (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rescorla, E.: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21, Internet Engineering Task Force (2017). WiPGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swett, I.: QUIC - Deployment Experience @Google. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-quic-3.pdf
  19. 19.
    Verisign. Zone Files For Top-Level Domains (TLDs). verisign.com
  20. 20.
    Verisign. The verisign domain name industry brief, September 2017. https://www.verisign.com/assets/domain-name-report-Q22017.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Rüth
    • 1
  • Ingmar Poese
    • 2
  • Christoph Dietzel
    • 3
  • Oliver Hohlfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Benocs GmbHBerlinGermany
  3. 3.TU Berlin/DE-CIXBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations