Performance Evaluation of HTTP/2 over TLS+TCP and HTTP/2 over QUIC in a Mobile Network

  • Yueming Zheng School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  • Ying Wang School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  • Mingda Rui School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  • Andrei Palade School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  • Shane Sheehan School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  • Eamonn O' Nuallain School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Keywords: HTTP/2, QUIC, TCP, emulation, Mininet, MininetWifi.

Abstract

With the development of technology and the increasing requirement for Internet speed, the web page load time is becoming more and more important in the current society. However, with the increasing scale of data transfer volume, it is hard for the current bandwidth used on the Internet to catch the ideal standard. In OSI protocol stack, the transport layer and application layer provide the ability to determine the package transfer time. The web page load time is determined by the header of the package when the package is launched into the application layer. To improve the performance of the web page by reducing web page load time, HTTP/2 and QUIC has been designed in the industry. We have shown experimentally, that when compared with HTTP/2, QUIC results in lower response time and better network traffic efficiency.

References

G. Carlucci, L. De Cicco, and S. Mascolo. Http over udp: an experimental investigation of quic. pages 609–614, 2015.

H. De Saxce, I. Oprescu, and Y. Chen. Is http/2 really faster than http/1.1? In Computer Communications Workshops, pages 293–299, 2015.

M. Fischlin and F. Nther. Multi-stage key exchange and the case of

google’s quic protocol. In ACM Sigsac Conference on Computer and

Communications Security, pages 1193–1204, 2014.

F. Gratzer. Quic-quick udp internet connections. Future In- ternet (FI) and Innovative Internet Technologies and Mobile Communications (IITM),

, 2016.

R. Lychev, S. Jero, A. Boldyreva, and C. Nita-Rotaru. How secure and

quick is quic? provable security and performance analyses. pages 214–

, 2015.

H. F. Nielsen, J. Gettys, A. Bairdsmith, E. Prud’Hommeaux, H. W. Lie,

and C. Lilley. Network performance effects of http/1.1, css1, and png.

Acm Sigcomm Computer Communi- cation Review, 27(4):155–166, 1997.

R. Peon and H. Ruellan. Hpack: Header compression for http/2. 2013.

G. Szabo ́, S. Ra ́cz, D. Bezzera, I. Nogueira, and D. Sadok. Media qoe

enhancement with quic. In Computer Communi- cations Workshops

(INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2016 IEEE Con- ference on, pages 219–220.

IEEE, 2016.

B. Thomas, R. Jurdak, and I. Atkinson. Spdying up the web.

Communications of the Acm, 55(12):64–73, 2012.

Published
2018-03-26
How to Cite
Zheng, Y., Wang, Y., Rui, M., Palade, A., Sheehan, S., & Nuallain, E. O. (2018). Performance Evaluation of HTTP/2 over TLS+TCP and HTTP/2 over QUIC in a Mobile Network. Journal of Information Sciences and Computing Technologies, 7(1), 673-682. Retrieved from http://scitecresearch.com/journals/index.php/jisct/article/view/1409
Section
Articles