Re: Shome mishtake shirley?
Yes, Jesus wept at this article... A cursory check of Wikipedia would have spotted half the issues.
It will also mean saying goodbye to the protocol that effectively made the internet possible: TCP.
TCP will continue to be a fallback, not least because there is no support for UDP tunnelling under a HTTP proxy
"And the reason is that TCP intrinsically assumes you will stay at the same address on the network while you are sending and receiving information. As soon as you starting moving around however, that address shifts. If you leave your house and your home Wi-Fi to join a 4G network, that's one shift."
Yes, that would be. At which point you'd have the break down the old TCP conneciton and build a new one. But UDP despite being stateless is likely still going through NAT / GiFW, so you'll still need to send packets to get traffic.
"If you get on a bus or a train to head to work in the morning, or if you stroll home at the end of the day, you will be constantly shifting your network address as you move from cell tower to cell tower."
Handoff between cells generally keep the same IP. Not all subscribers, but the vast vast majority
"This modern use of the internet has already led to plenty of other changes and improvements to existing internet protocols – for example, the shift from HTTP 1.1 to HTTP 2.0 was largely because people now use multiple applications at the same time and expect each to be able receive data."
Jesus wept. HTTP 2.0 allows multiple streams of data to a single service, not multiple services, not from multiple applications. With HTTP 2.0 you'll establish a new TCP connection for each app to each destination, or with QUIC UDP.
"What's more, if you are moving around from network address to network address, this UDP approach should end up much faster because it pulls out TCP's checking mechanism, speeding things up."
Checksums are offloaded to hardware, so the "Effort" is minimal. With UDP over IPv4 checksumming is technically optional, but if you skip it you have to zero pad the checksum field, so you don't reclaim bandwidth. Under IPv6 it's mandatory anyway, as skipping checksumming makes no sense. Besides, you need to hash for DTLS anyway.
What's faster is you have direct control of the congestion control algorithms, fewer roundtrips to bring up a "Connection", etc.
"And that's what first Google and now the IETF internet engineers have been working on: how to add TCP-style encryption and loss detection to UDP. It will also add in the latest standards like TLS 1.3."
TCP doesn't have encryption. TLS only runs over TCP, true, but DTLS (UDP transport) has been around for a very long time
"It will create problems for people using NAT routers as a way to handle the painfully slow move from IPv4 to IPv6. NAT routers track TCP connections to work seamlessly and since QUIC doesn't use TCP, its connections through such networks could well drop out."
Bollocks. NAT routers track UDP "Connections" in more or less the same way as TCP. Plus QUIC clients fall back to TCP in case of issues
"Likewise, if a network is using Anycast or ECMP routing – both used for load-balancing - the same problem will likely occur."
Anycast and ECMP break TCP too. And require more work to re-establish