Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It is not faster in this sense. However, an SSH connection can have multiple substreams, especially for port forwarding. Over a single classical connection, this can lead to head-of-line blocking, where an issue in one stream slows everything down. QUIC/HTTP3 protocol can solve this.


Does this implementation do that do, or does it just use a single h3 stream?


The answer is yes according to code and documentation [0]:

> The stream multiplexing capabilities of QUIC allow reducing the head-of-line blocking that SSHv2 encounters when multiplexing several SSH channels over the same TCP connection

....

> Each channel runs over a bidirectional HTTP/3 stream and is attached to a single remote terminal session

[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-michel-remote-terminal...


Fun fact: SSH also supports multiple streams. It's called multiplexing.


Multiple streams at the application level, which can be head-of-line blocked due to all being multiplexed on the same transport layer connection.

The former kind of multiplexing addresses functionality, the latter performance.


Doesn't it run over a single TCP connection in all cases, unless you manually launch multiple and manually load-balance your clients across is? As in, it won't/can't open a new TCP connection when you open a new connection in the SOCKS proxy or port forward. They'll all share one head-of-line and block each other

Not that I've ever noticed this being an issue (no matter how much we complain, internet here is pretty decent)

Edit: seeing as someone downvoted your hour-old comment just as I was adding this first reply, I guess maybe they 'voted to disagree'... Would be nice if the person would comment. It wasn't me anyway




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: