SCONE by martinthomson · Pull Request #2814 · mozilla/neqo

martinthomson · 2025-07-30T06:09:43Z

This turned out to be relatively easy to implement.

Does doesn't do anything with the SCONE indications that are received; as this is intended for use in a browser, there isn't an easy way to plumb those through to something that might use those indications. For the moment, these are just logged.

codecov · 2025-07-30T06:16:55Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.76271% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 94.00%. Comparing base (70a0ba6) to head (07e4f68).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2814      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.12%   94.00%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         125      129       +4     
  Lines       38339    38735     +396     
  Branches    38339    38735     +396     
==========================================
+ Hits        36086    36413     +327     
- Misses       1412     1473      +61     
- Partials      841      849       +8

Flag	Coverage Δ
freebsd	`93.05% <94.06%> (-0.10%)`	⬇️
linux	`94.10% <95.76%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
macos	`94.00% <95.76%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
windows	`94.09% <95.76%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
neqo-common	`98.54% <ø> (ø)`
neqo-crypto	`86.90% <ø> (ø)`
neqo-http3	`93.91% <ø> (ø)`
neqo-qpack	`94.34% <ø> (ø)`
neqo-transport	`94.93% <95.76%> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
neqo-udp	`82.97% <ø> (ø)`
mtu	`86.61% <ø> (ø)`

martinthomson · 2025-07-30T10:16:47Z

I'm still stumped on the performance hit here. Any ideas?

mxinden · 2025-07-30T10:27:22Z

Nothing comes to mind. I will try to reproduce locally.

mxinden · 2025-07-30T10:42:14Z

Hypothesis:

We no longer pad with 0x00s, but 0xc8 instead.

0x00 padding is filtered out early in our processing pipeline

neqo/neqo-transport/src/packet/mod.rs

Lines 619 to 628 in 4ad2f9a

    
           if first & 0x80 == PACKET_BIT_SHORT { 
        
               // Conveniently, this also guarantees that there is enough space 
        
               // for a connection ID of any size. 
        
               if decoder.remaining() < SAMPLE_OFFSET + SAMPLE_SIZE { 
        
                   return Err(Error::InvalidPacket); 
        
               } 
        
               let dcid = Self::opt(dcid_decoder.decode_cid(&mut decoder))?.into(); 
        
               if decoder.remaining() < SAMPLE_OFFSET + SAMPLE_SIZE { 
        
                   return Err(Error::InvalidPacket); 
        
               }

0xc8 is interpreted as a long packet, then later on discarded.

I assume the additional processing itself is expensive. In addition we now have a qwarn! triggering in our hot path.

neqo/neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Lines 1498 to 1500 in 4ad2f9a

    
           self.stats 
        
               .borrow_mut() 
        
               .pkt_dropped("Coalesced packet has different DCID");

Executing the transfer benchmark locally, stdout is spammed with the qwarn! above.

Can we special case 0xc8 in packet/mod.rs encode to discard the SCONE padding early @martinthomson?

larseggert · 2025-07-30T10:49:21Z

We should also add a preference for this (default on).

martinthomson · 2025-07-30T11:21:47Z

I'm not sure about that hypothesis: we don't send these packets very often and an all-0xc8 packet usually fails decryption (because it's a long header packet with a connection ID longer than the remaining bytes). That's FASTER path to rejecting the packet than attempting to decrypt a short header packet.

As for the qwarn!(), we should downgrade that to qinfo!() or even qdebug!(), because dropping packets is totally normal. I'll try that out.

martinthomson · 2025-07-30T11:26:31Z

Oh, I just realized what might be going on here:

neqo/neqo-transport/src/packet/mod.rs

Lines 667 to 680 in 4ad2f9a

    
           let Ok(version) = Version::try_from(version) else { 
        
               return Ok(( 
        
                   Self { 
        
                       packet_type: Type::OtherVersion, 
        
                       dcid, 
        
                       scid: Some(scid), 
        
                       token: vec![], 
        
                       header_len: decoder.offset(), 
        
                       version: Some(version), 
        
                       data, 
        
                   }, 
        
                   &mut [], 
        
               )); 
        
           };

This might be more work than following the short header path. Maybe this needs a flag where that option produces an error instead. That code only makes sense in the very early phases of server setup.

martinthomson · 2025-07-31T08:56:40Z

Testing on my machine shows less-than-ideal performance, hinting at a slowdown, but I can't spot the problem still:

$ target/release/deps/transfer-ea5f6c8313464190 --bench -b main
transfer/pacing-false/varying-seeds
                        time:   [20.598 ms 20.658 ms 20.723 ms]
                        change: [−0.1420% +0.3377% +0.8482%] (p = 0.18 > 0.05)
                        No change in performance detected.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  2 (2.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe

transfer/pacing-true/varying-seeds
                        time:   [20.808 ms 20.894 ms 20.988 ms]
                        change: [+1.8460% +2.2808% +2.7827%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Change within noise threshold.
Found 11 outliers among 100 measurements (11.00%)
  8 (8.00%) high mild
  3 (3.00%) high severe

transfer/pacing-false/same-seed
                        time:   [20.479 ms 20.539 ms 20.608 ms]
                        change: [+0.9765% +1.3664% +1.7723%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Change within noise threshold.
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  6 (6.00%) high severe

transfer/pacing-true/same-seed
                        time:   [20.728 ms 20.785 ms 20.847 ms]
                        change: [−0.0452% +0.3311% +0.6927%] (p = 0.08 > 0.05)
                        No change in performance detected.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe

mxinden · 2025-07-31T09:47:48Z

For what it is worth, I too am unable to reproduce the regression locally with the latest patches. Here using the Download benchmark:

critcmp main scone    
group                                         main                                   scone
-----                                         ----                                   -----
1-conn/1-100mb-resp (aka. Download)/client    1.01    299.1±6.00ms   334.3 MB/sec    1.00    297.1±3.57ms   336.6 MB/sec

larseggert · 2025-07-31T10:39:06Z

Do the flamegraphs look different?

martinthomson · 2025-08-18T07:56:44Z

@mxinden, are you able to help out here? I know that this isn't high priority, but I really can't see how this change would materially affect performance. I'm unable to get flamegraphs from my machine easily, so your help would be appreciated.

larseggert · 2025-08-18T08:32:45Z

I'm unable to get flamegraphs from my machine easily, so your help would be appreciated.

You can "Download data for profiler.firefox.com" and then (with samply installed do, for example,

samply load neqo-neqo-cubic.client.perf.samply.json.gz

larseggert · 2025-08-27T07:58:54Z

Blocked by lack of final IANA codepoints.

larseggert · 2025-10-09T12:17:55Z

@martinthomson any news re: IANA codepoints?

github-actions · 2025-11-02T15:47:06Z

Bencher Report

Branch	scone
Testbed	On-prem

🚨 3 Alerts

Iteration	Benchmark	Measure Units	View	Benchmark Result (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary (Limit %)
0	google vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	Latency milliseconds (ms)	📈 plot 🚷 threshold 🚨 alert (🔔)	281.26 ms (+1.25%) Baseline: 277.80 ms	280.93 ms (100.12%)
2	neqo vs. google (cubic, paced)	Latency milliseconds (ms)	📈 plot 🚷 threshold 🚨 alert (🔔)	770.01 ms (+1.61%) Baseline: 757.79 ms	766.53 ms (100.45%)
4	neqo vs. neqo (cubic)	Latency milliseconds (ms)	📈 plot 🚷 threshold 🚨 alert (🔔)	96.32 ms (+5.95%) Baseline: 90.92 ms	95.70 ms (100.65%)

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
google vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold 🚨 view alert (🔔)	281.26 ms (+1.25%) Baseline: 277.80 ms	280.93 ms (100.12%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
msquic vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	202.26 ms (+2.25%) Baseline: 197.80 ms	234.78 ms (86.15%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. google (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold 🚨 view alert (🔔)	770.01 ms (+1.61%) Baseline: 757.79 ms	766.53 ms (100.45%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. msquic (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	159.72 ms (+1.23%) Baseline: 157.78 ms	160.78 ms (99.34%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. neqo (cubic)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold 🚨 view alert (🔔)	96.32 ms (+5.95%) Baseline: 90.92 ms	95.70 ms (100.65%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	96.76 ms (+4.81%) Baseline: 92.32 ms	97.06 ms (99.69%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. neqo (reno)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	94.80 ms (+4.18%) Baseline: 90.99 ms	95.81 ms (98.95%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. neqo (reno, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	96.69 ms (+4.82%) Baseline: 92.25 ms	96.90 ms (99.78%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. quiche (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	193.63 ms (-0.04%) Baseline: 193.71 ms	197.11 ms (98.24%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
neqo vs. s2n (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	223.81 ms (+1.28%) Baseline: 220.98 ms	223.89 ms (99.97%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
quiche vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	154.09 ms (+0.68%) Baseline: 153.05 ms	158.41 ms (97.27%)

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result milliseconds (ms) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary milliseconds (ms) (Limit %)
s2n vs. neqo (cubic, paced)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	173.37 ms (-0.44%) Baseline: 174.14 ms	178.20 ms (97.29%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

github-actions · 2025-11-02T15:54:01Z

Bencher Report

Branch	scone
Testbed	On-prem

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result nanoseconds (ns) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary nanoseconds (ns) (Limit %)
1-conn/1-100mb-req/mtu-1504 (aka. Upload)/client	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	202,590,000.00 ns (-2.09%) Baseline: 206,915,535.71 ns	217,159,737.21 ns (93.29%)
1-conn/1-100mb-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. Download)/client	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	198,750,000.00 ns (-1.08%) Baseline: 200,919,678.57 ns	211,977,656.90 ns (93.76%)
1-conn/1-1b-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. HPS)/client	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	38,614,000.00 ns (+28.65%) Baseline: 30,014,553.57 ns	38,834,114.80 ns (99.43%)
1-conn/10_000-parallel-1b-resp/mtu-1504 (aka. RPS)/client	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	285,700,000.00 ns (-2.18%) Baseline: 292,070,250.00 ns	304,889,871.10 ns (93.71%)
1-streams/each-1000-bytes/simulated-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	118,970,000.00 ns (+0.32%) Baseline: 118,588,857.14 ns	120,800,869.77 ns (98.48%)
1-streams/each-1000-bytes/wallclock-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	589,410.00 ns (-0.79%) Baseline: 594,113.93 ns	618,038.86 ns (95.37%)
1000-streams/each-1-bytes/simulated-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14,994,000,000.00 ns (+0.00%) Baseline: 14,993,371,428.57 ns	15,011,666,803.43 ns (99.88%)
1000-streams/each-1-bytes/wallclock-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	13,606,000.00 ns (-2.97%) Baseline: 14,022,064.29 ns	14,893,959.05 ns (91.35%)
1000-streams/each-1000-bytes/simulated-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	18,943,000,000.00 ns (-0.08%) Baseline: 18,958,367,857.14 ns	19,233,360,057.78 ns (98.49%)
1000-streams/each-1000-bytes/wallclock-time	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	47,697,000.00 ns (-6.27%) Baseline: 50,887,767.86 ns	57,642,611.62 ns (82.75%)
RxStreamOrderer::inbound_frame()	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	109,100,000.00 ns (-0.50%) Baseline: 109,643,642.86 ns	111,661,047.44 ns (97.71%)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 1+1 entries	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	89.29 ns (+0.70%) Baseline: 88.67 ns	89.53 ns (99.74%)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 10+1 entries	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	106.10 ns (+0.06%) Baseline: 106.03 ns	107.11 ns (99.06%)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 1000+1 entries	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	91.37 ns (+1.65%) Baseline: 89.88 ns	94.19 ns (97.01%)
coalesce_acked_from_zero 3+1 entries	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	106.23 ns (-0.30%) Baseline: 106.55 ns	107.60 ns (98.73%)
decode 1048576 bytes, mask 3f	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,589,400.00 ns (-2.45%) Baseline: 1,629,356.07 ns	1,796,685.47 ns (88.46%)
decode 1048576 bytes, mask 7f	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5,053,000.00 ns (-0.27%) Baseline: 5,066,498.57 ns	5,112,482.30 ns (98.84%)
decode 1048576 bytes, mask ff	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	3,034,400.00 ns (+0.18%) Baseline: 3,028,805.36 ns	3,047,003.29 ns (99.59%)
decode 4096 bytes, mask 3f	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5,541.20 ns (-26.99%) Baseline: 7,589.43 ns	10,399.47 ns (53.28%)
decode 4096 bytes, mask 7f	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	19,456.00 ns (-1.99%) Baseline: 19,851.86 ns	20,473.58 ns (95.03%)
decode 4096 bytes, mask ff	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	10,670.00 ns (-6.75%) Baseline: 11,441.97 ns	12,557.73 ns (84.97%)
sent::Packets::take_ranges	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4,546.10 ns (-3.96%) Baseline: 4,733.55 ns	4,972.28 ns (91.43%)
transfer/pacing-false/same-seed/simulated-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	25,710,000,000.00 ns (+1.14%) Baseline: 25,418,956,834.53 ns	26,071,176,299.93 ns (98.61%)
transfer/pacing-false/same-seed/wallclock-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	25,061,000.00 ns (-3.14%) Baseline: 25,874,615.11 ns	27,028,139.12 ns (92.72%)
transfer/pacing-false/varying-seeds/simulated-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	25,172,000,000.00 ns (-0.00%) Baseline: 25,172,341,726.62 ns	25,220,118,696.55 ns (99.81%)
transfer/pacing-false/varying-seeds/wallclock-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	24,513,000.00 ns (-5.48%) Baseline: 25,934,906.47 ns	27,500,645.35 ns (89.14%)
transfer/pacing-true/same-seed/simulated-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	25,675,000,000.00 ns (+0.18%) Baseline: 25,629,622,302.16 ns	25,731,312,433.86 ns (99.78%)
transfer/pacing-true/same-seed/wallclock-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	25,803,000.00 ns (-5.06%) Baseline: 27,177,485.61 ns	28,686,876.26 ns (89.95%)
transfer/pacing-true/varying-seeds/simulated-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	24,954,000,000.00 ns (-0.16%) Baseline: 24,993,672,661.87 ns	25,042,687,291.64 ns (99.65%)
transfer/pacing-true/varying-seeds/wallclock-time/run	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	24,942,000.00 ns (-5.67%) Baseline: 26,441,928.06 ns	28,087,481.03 ns (88.80%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

github-actions · 2025-11-02T17:58:17Z

Failed Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest vs. go-x-net: ⚠️BP BA
neqo-latest vs. haproxy: ⚠️BP BA
neqo-latest vs. kwik: ⚠️S L1 C1 BP BA
neqo-latest vs. linuxquic: ⚠️R C1
neqo-latest vs. lsquic: run cancelled after 20 min
neqo-latest vs. msquic: ⚠️R Z A L1 C1
neqo-latest vs. mvfst: ⚠️H DC LR M R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA
neqo-latest vs. neqo: ⚠️A
neqo-latest vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️A
neqo-latest vs. nginx: ⚠️BP BA
neqo-latest vs. ngtcp2: ⚠️CM
neqo-latest vs. picoquic: ⚠️A L1
neqo-latest vs. quic-go: ⚠️A
neqo-latest vs. quiche: ⚠️C1 BP BA
neqo-latest vs. quinn: ⚠️A
neqo-latest vs. s2n-quic: ⚠️BA CM
neqo-latest vs. tquic: ⚠️S BP BA
neqo-latest vs. xquic: ⚠️A L1 C1

neqo-latest as server

aioquic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️C1 CM
go-x-net vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️CM
kwik vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️BP BA CM
lsquic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️BA
msquic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️U CM
mvfst vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️Z A L1 C1 CM
neqo vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️A
openssl vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️LR M A CM
quic-go vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️CM
quiche vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️CM
quinn vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️V2 CM
s2n-quic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️CM
tquic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️CM
xquic vs. neqo-latest: ⚠️M CM

All results

Succeeded Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest vs. aioquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. go-x-net: 🚀~~H DC LR M B U A L2 C2 6~~
neqo-latest vs. haproxy: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2~~
neqo-latest vs. kwik: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M R Z 3 B U A L2 C2 6 V2~~
neqo-latest vs. linuxquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
neqo-latest vs. msquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S B U L2 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. neqo: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
neqo-latest vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
neqo-latest vs. nginx: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6~~
neqo-latest vs. ngtcp2: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. picoquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. quic-go: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. quiche: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C2 6~~
neqo-latest vs. quinn: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
neqo-latest vs. s2n-quic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP~~
neqo-latest vs. tquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6~~
neqo-latest vs. xquic: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U L2 C2 6 BP BA~~

neqo-latest as server

aioquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
chrome vs. neqo-latest: 🚀3
go-x-net vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR M B U A L2 C2 6 BP BA~~
kwik vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2~~
linuxquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
lsquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP CM~~
msquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z B A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA~~
mvfst vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR M 3 B L2 C2 6 BP BA~~
neqo vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
ngtcp2 vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
openssl vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC C20 S R 3 B L2 C2 6 BP BA~~
picoquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM~~
quic-go vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
quiche vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR M S R Z 3 B A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
quinn vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
s2n-quic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR M S R 3 B E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
tquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR M S R Z 3 B A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~
xquic vs. neqo-latest: 🚀~~H DC LR C20 S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA~~

Unsupported Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest vs. aioquic: E CM
neqo-latest vs. go-x-net: C20 S R Z 3 E L1 C1 V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. haproxy: E CM
neqo-latest vs. kwik: E CM
neqo-latest vs. msquic: 3 E CM
neqo-latest vs. mvfst: C20 S E V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. nginx: E V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. picoquic: CM
neqo-latest vs. quic-go: E V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. quiche: E V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. quinn: V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. s2n-quic: Z V2
neqo-latest vs. tquic: E V2 CM
neqo-latest vs. xquic: E V2 CM

neqo-latest as server

aioquic vs. neqo-latest: E
chrome vs. neqo-latest: H DC LR C20 M S R Z B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
go-x-net vs. neqo-latest: C20 S R Z 3 E L1 C1 V2
kwik vs. neqo-latest: E
lsquic vs. neqo-latest: Z U
msquic vs. neqo-latest: 3 E
mvfst vs. neqo-latest: C20 S R U E V2
openssl vs. neqo-latest: Z U E L1 C1 V2
quic-go vs. neqo-latest: E V2
quiche vs. neqo-latest: C20 U E V2
s2n-quic vs. neqo-latest: C20 Z U V2
tquic vs. neqo-latest: C20 U E V2
xquic vs. neqo-latest: E V2

codspeed-hq · 2026-03-12T05:32:47Z

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 20.14%

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
❌ 6 regressed benchmarks
✅ 44 untouched benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	WallTime	`google-google`	1.2 s	1.2 s	-5.42%
❌	WallTime	`neqo-s2n`	510.5 ms	606.9 ms	-15.89%
❌	WallTime	`quiche-neqo`	345.8 ms	433 ms	-20.14%
⚡	WallTime	`msquic-msquic`	482.2 ms	459.4 ms	+4.97%
❌	WallTime	`neqo-neqo-newreno-nopacing`	280 ms	300.3 ms	-6.75%
❌	WallTime	`neqo-neqo-cubic`	292.2 ms	304.4 ms	-4.02%
❌	WallTime	`neqo-neqo-cubic-nopacing`	283.4 ms	300.3 ms	-5.65%

_{Comparing martinthomson:scone (07e4f68) with main (70a0ba6)}

larseggert · 2026-03-12T08:54:42Z

@martinthomson is this now ready to review/land, or are we still waiting for IANA codepoints?

martinthomson · 2026-03-12T09:50:16Z

So, I think we should land it, but I have not yet sent the email to IANA. I'm drafting it right now.

github-actions · 2026-03-13T06:25:07Z

Failed Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server, differences relative to main at 70a0ba6.

neqo-pr as client	neqo-pr as server
neqo-pr vs. go-x-net: BP BA neqo-pr vs. haproxy: 🚀C1 BP BA neqo-pr vs. kwik: S L1 C1 BP BA neqo-pr vs. lsquic: L1 C1 neqo-pr vs. msquic: A L1 C1 neqo-pr vs. mvfst: H DC LR M R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA neqo-pr vs. neqo: Z A ⚠️BP neqo-pr vs. nginx: BP BA neqo-pr vs. ngtcp2: 🚀C1 CM neqo-pr vs. picoquic: A ⚠️BP neqo-pr vs. quic-go: A 🚀L1 neqo-pr vs. quiche: BP BA neqo-pr vs. s2n-quic: ⚠️BP BA CM neqo-pr vs. tquic: S BP BA neqo-pr vs. xquic: A 🚀C1	aioquic vs. neqo-pr: Z CM go-x-net vs. neqo-pr: CM kwik vs. neqo-pr: Z BP BA CM lsquic vs. neqo-pr: Z 🚀~~L1 C1~~ msquic vs. neqo-pr: Z 🚀BA CM mvfst vs. neqo-pr: Z A L1 C1 CM neqo vs. neqo-pr: Z A openssl vs. neqo-pr: LR M A CM picoquic vs. neqo-pr: Z CM quic-go vs. neqo-pr: 🚀C1 ⚠️BP CM quiche vs. neqo-pr: Z CM quinn vs. neqo-pr: Z ⚠️L1 V2 CM s2n-quic vs. neqo-pr: B ⚠️BA CM tquic vs. neqo-pr: Z 🚀C1 CM xquic vs. neqo-pr: M CM

All results

Succeeded Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server

neqo-pr as client

neqo-pr vs. aioquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA
neqo-pr vs. go-x-net: H DC LR M B U A L2 C2 6
neqo-pr vs. haproxy: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 V2
neqo-pr vs. kwik: H DC LR C20 M R Z 3 B U A L2 C2 6 V2
neqo-pr vs. linuxquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
neqo-pr vs. lsquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L2 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
neqo-pr vs. msquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z B U L2 C2 6 V2 BP BA
neqo-pr vs. neqo: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 ⚠️BP BA CM
neqo-pr vs. nginx: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6
neqo-pr vs. ngtcp2: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA
neqo-pr vs. picoquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 ⚠️BP BA
neqo-pr vs. quic-go: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U 🚀L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA
neqo-pr vs. quiche: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6
neqo-pr vs. quinn: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA
neqo-pr vs. s2n-quic: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 ⚠️BP BA
neqo-pr vs. tquic: H DC LR C20 M R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6
neqo-pr vs. xquic: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 BP BA

neqo-pr as server

aioquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA
chrome vs. neqo-pr: 3
go-x-net vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR M B U A L2 C2 6 BP BA
kwik vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2
linuxquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
lsquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B E A 🚀L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
msquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP 🚀BA
mvfst vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR M 3 B L2 C2 6 BP BA
neqo vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
ngtcp2 vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
openssl vs. neqo-pr: H DC C20 S R 3 B L2 C2 6 BP BA
picoquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA
quic-go vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 ⚠️BP BA
quiche vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR M S R 3 B A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA
quinn vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R 3 B U E A ⚠️L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA
s2n-quic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR M S R 3 E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP ⚠️BA
tquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR M S R 3 B A L1 L2 🚀C1 C2 6 BP BA
xquic vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 S R Z 3 B U A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 BP BA

Unsupported Interop Tests

QUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server

neqo-pr as client

neqo-pr vs. aioquic: E CM
neqo-pr vs. go-x-net: C20 S R Z 3 E L1 C1 V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. haproxy: E CM
neqo-pr vs. kwik: E CM
neqo-pr vs. msquic: 3 E CM
neqo-pr vs. mvfst: C20 S E V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. nginx: E V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. picoquic: CM
neqo-pr vs. quic-go: E V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. quiche: E V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. quinn: V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. s2n-quic: Z V2
neqo-pr vs. tquic: E V2 CM
neqo-pr vs. xquic: E V2 CM

neqo-pr as server

aioquic vs. neqo-pr: E
chrome vs. neqo-pr: H DC LR C20 M S R Z B U E A L1 L2 C1 C2 6 V2 BP BA CM
go-x-net vs. neqo-pr: C20 S R Z 3 E L1 C1 V2
kwik vs. neqo-pr: E
lsquic vs. neqo-pr: U
msquic vs. neqo-pr: 3 E
mvfst vs. neqo-pr: C20 S R U E V2
openssl vs. neqo-pr: Z U E L1 C1 V2
quic-go vs. neqo-pr: E V2
quiche vs. neqo-pr: C20 U E V2
s2n-quic vs. neqo-pr: C20 Z U V2
tquic vs. neqo-pr: C20 U E V2
xquic vs. neqo-pr: E V2

github-actions · 2026-03-13T06:32:19Z

Client/server transfer results

Performance differences relative to 70a0ba6.

Transfer of 33554432 bytes over loopback, min. 100 runs. All unit-less numbers are in milliseconds.

Client vs. server (params)	Mean ± σ	Min	Max	MiB/s ± σ	Δ `main`	Δ `main`
neqo-google-cubic	757.0 ± 5.0	749.4	772.9	42.3 ± 6.4	💔 1.7	0.2%

Table above only shows statistically significant changes. See all results below.

All results

Transfer of 33554432 bytes over loopback, min. 100 runs. All unit-less numbers are in milliseconds.

Client vs. server (params)	Mean ± σ	Min	Max	MiB/s ± σ	Δ `main`	Δ `main`
google-google-nopacing	456.0 ± 4.4	450.5	476.8	70.2 ± 7.3
google-neqo-cubic	273.8 ± 4.4	265.6	281.7	116.9 ± 7.3	1.1	0.4%
msquic-msquic-nopacing	233.8 ± 107.4	142.3	583.6	136.8 ± 0.3
msquic-neqo-cubic	232.1 ± 86.7	154.8	564.9	137.9 ± 0.4	-16.9	-6.8%
neqo-google-cubic	757.0 ± 5.0	749.4	772.9	42.3 ± 6.4	💔 1.7	0.2%
neqo-msquic-cubic	159.8 ± 4.5	151.6	175.8	200.3 ± 7.1	0.5	0.3%
neqo-neqo-cubic	96.4 ± 4.5	86.7	106.2	332.0 ± 7.1	0.5	0.5%
neqo-neqo-cubic-nopacing	96.2 ± 4.1	85.6	103.5	332.6 ± 7.8	0.5	0.5%
neqo-neqo-newreno	97.2 ± 4.4	86.4	108.3	329.1 ± 7.3	-1.0	-1.0%
neqo-neqo-newreno-nopacing	95.8 ± 4.2	87.8	104.5	334.0 ± 7.6	-1.0	-1.0%
neqo-quiche-cubic	191.5 ± 4.3	186.1	213.9	167.1 ± 7.4	-0.4	-0.2%
neqo-s2n-cubic	220.5 ± 4.2	212.3	232.2	145.1 ± 7.6	1.2	0.6%
quiche-neqo-cubic	181.1 ± 5.7	169.6	209.2	176.7 ± 5.6	1.0	0.6%
quiche-quiche-nopacing	143.8 ± 4.1	136.7	157.5	222.5 ± 7.8
s2n-neqo-cubic	173.7 ± 4.7	163.9	183.2	184.2 ± 6.8	-0.4	-0.2%
s2n-s2n-nopacing	245.4 ± 19.7	233.0	344.0	130.4 ± 1.6

Download data for profiler.firefox.com or download performance comparison data.

github-actions · 2026-03-13T06:40:13Z

Benchmark results

No significant performance differences relative to 70a0ba6.

All results

transfer/1-conn/1-100mb-resp (aka. Download)/mtu-1504: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [197.93 ms 198.43 ms 199.02 ms]
       thrpt:  [502.46 MiB/s 503.95 MiB/s 505.23 MiB/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.0443% +0.2732% +0.6275] (p = 0.09 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.6236% -0.2725% +0.0443]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe

transfer/1-conn/10_000-parallel-1b-resp (aka. RPS)/mtu-1504: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [283.03 ms 285.16 ms 287.38 ms]
       thrpt:  [34.797 Kelem/s 35.068 Kelem/s 35.332 Kelem/s]
change:
       time:   [-2.1399% -1.1603% -0.1824] (p = 0.02 < 0.05)
       thrpt:  [+0.1828% +1.1739% +2.1867]
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild

transfer/1-conn/1-1b-resp (aka. HPS)/mtu-1504: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [38.542 ms 38.706 ms 38.889 ms]
       thrpt:  [25.714   B/s 25.836   B/s 25.946   B/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.8019% -0.1437% +0.5034] (p = 0.67 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.5009% +0.1440% +0.8084]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild
6 (6.00%) high severe

transfer/1-conn/1-100mb-req (aka. Upload)/mtu-1504: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [202.99 ms 203.47 ms 204.02 ms]
       thrpt:  [490.14 MiB/s 491.47 MiB/s 492.64 MiB/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.3128% +0.0221% +0.3565] (p = 0.90 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.3552% -0.0221% +0.3138]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
4 (4.00%) high severe

decode 4096 bytes, mask ff: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [5.5763 µs 5.5850 µs 5.5939 µs]
       change: [-0.2152% +0.0040% +0.2470] (p = 0.98 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

decode 1048576 bytes, mask ff: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [1.4271 ms 1.4311 ms 1.4372 ms]
       change: [-0.1075% +0.2766% +0.7720] (p = 0.23 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
1 (1.00%) high severe

decode 4096 bytes, mask 7f: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [8.4650 µs 8.4768 µs 8.4893 µs]
       change: [-0.2324% +0.0456% +0.3221] (p = 0.74 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

decode 1048576 bytes, mask 7f: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [2.1773 ms 2.1818 ms 2.1874 ms]
       change: [-0.5134% -0.1047% +0.2900] (p = 0.62 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

decode 4096 bytes, mask 3f: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [6.9032 µs 6.9140 µs 6.9254 µs]
       change: [-0.3095% -0.0267% +0.2410] (p = 0.85 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
5 (5.00%) high mild
3 (3.00%) high severe

decode 1048576 bytes, mask 3f: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [1.7652 ms 1.7685 ms 1.7724 ms]
       change: [-0.2524% +0.0026% +0.2819] (p = 0.98 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
1 (1.00%) high severe

streams/simulated/1-streams/each-1000-bytes: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [129.68 ms 129.68 ms 129.68 ms]
       thrpt:  [7.5303 KiB/s 7.5305 KiB/s 7.5307 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.0023% +0.0015% +0.0052] (p = 0.46 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.0052% -0.0015% +0.0023]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild

streams/simulated/1000-streams/each-1-bytes: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [2.5361 s 2.5364 s 2.5367 s]
       thrpt:  [394.21   B/s 394.26   B/s 394.30   B/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.0220% -0.0059% +0.0102] (p = 0.48 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.0102% +0.0059% +0.0220]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild

streams/simulated/1000-streams/each-1000-bytes: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [6.5835 s 6.5909 s 6.5996 s]
       thrpt:  [147.97 KiB/s 148.17 KiB/s 148.34 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [-0.1778% +0.0052% +0.1911] (p = 0.96 > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [-0.1907% -0.0052% +0.1781]
       No change in performance detected.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
4 (4.00%) high severe

streams/walltime/1-streams/each-1000-bytes: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [586.66 µs 588.45 µs 590.55 µs]
       change: [-0.8296% -0.2135% +0.3625] (p = 0.50 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 6 outliers among 100 measurements (6.00%)
6 (6.00%) high severe

streams/walltime/1000-streams/each-1-bytes: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [12.415 ms 12.433 ms 12.451 ms]
       change: [+0.0221% +0.2373% +0.4506] (p = 0.03 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.

streams/walltime/1000-streams/each-1000-bytes: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [45.128 ms 45.210 ms 45.329 ms]
       change: [+0.9418% +1.1548% +1.4658] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

coalesce_acked_from_zero 1+1 entries: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [92.813 ns 93.854 ns 95.679 ns]
       change: [-0.1248% +0.7778% +1.9582] (p = 0.18 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 14 outliers among 100 measurements (14.00%)
9 (9.00%) high mild
5 (5.00%) high severe

coalesce_acked_from_zero 3+1 entries: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [110.47 ns 110.82 ns 111.18 ns]
       change: [-0.3244% +0.1062% +0.5293] (p = 0.63 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 14 outliers among 100 measurements (14.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild
12 (12.00%) high severe

coalesce_acked_from_zero 10+1 entries: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [110.01 ns 110.65 ns 111.47 ns]
       change: [-0.1652% +0.3048% +0.8085] (p = 0.26 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 10 outliers among 100 measurements (10.00%)
3 (3.00%) low mild
7 (7.00%) high severe

coalesce_acked_from_zero 1000+1 entries: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [94.346 ns 94.483 ns 94.630 ns]
       change: [-0.4063% +0.0605% +0.4596] (p = 0.80 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
4 (4.00%) high mild
4 (4.00%) high severe

RxStreamOrderer::inbound_frame(): Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [107.86 ms 107.95 ms 108.03 ms]
       change: [-0.9959% -0.7995% -0.6440] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild

sent::Packets::take_ranges: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [4.3918 µs 4.4779 µs 4.5497 µs]
       change: [-2.5511% +0.4449% +3.6039] (p = 0.78 > 0.05)
       No change in performance detected.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild

transfer/simulated/pacing-false/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [23.941 s 23.941 s 23.941 s]
       thrpt:  [171.09 KiB/s 171.09 KiB/s 171.09 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000] (p = NaN > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000]
       No change in performance detected.

transfer/simulated/pacing-true/varying-seeds: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [23.676 s 23.676 s 23.676 s]
       thrpt:  [173.01 KiB/s 173.01 KiB/s 173.01 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000] (p = NaN > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000]
       No change in performance detected.

transfer/simulated/pacing-false/same-seed: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [23.941 s 23.941 s 23.941 s]
       thrpt:  [171.09 KiB/s 171.09 KiB/s 171.09 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000] (p = NaN > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000]
       No change in performance detected.

transfer/simulated/pacing-true/same-seed: No change in performance detected.

       time:   [23.676 s 23.676 s 23.676 s]
       thrpt:  [173.01 KiB/s 173.01 KiB/s 173.01 KiB/s]
change:
       time:   [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000] (p = NaN > 0.05)
       thrpt:  [+0.0000% +0.0000% +0.0000]
       No change in performance detected.

transfer/walltime/pacing-false/varying-seeds: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [23.272 ms 23.301 ms 23.345 ms]
       change: [+1.9599% +2.1099% +2.3312] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 5 outliers among 100 measurements (5.00%)
1 (1.00%) low mild
3 (3.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

transfer/walltime/pacing-true/varying-seeds: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [23.508 ms 23.537 ms 23.580 ms]
       change: [+1.2549% +1.4040% +1.5998] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
2 (2.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

transfer/walltime/pacing-false/same-seed: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [23.229 ms 23.258 ms 23.302 ms]
       change: [+1.1809% +1.3314% +1.5170] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 2 outliers among 100 measurements (2.00%)
1 (1.00%) high mild
1 (1.00%) high severe

transfer/walltime/pacing-true/same-seed: Change within noise threshold.

       time:   [23.990 ms 24.011 ms 24.037 ms]
       change: [+2.3453% +2.4665% +2.5992] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
       Change within noise threshold.
Found 1 outliers among 100 measurements (1.00%)
1 (1.00%) high severe

Download data for profiler.firefox.com or download performance comparison data.

larseggert · 2026-03-13T06:50:04Z

So, I think we should land it, but I have not yet sent the email to IANA. I'm drafting it right now.

So we should wait with landing this until we have codepoints? Or land it and then change them in a follow-on PR?

martinthomson · 2026-03-13T07:10:59Z

So we should wait with landing this until we have codepoints? Or land it and then change them in a follow-on PR?

Given how QUIC registries work (registrant suggests a codepoint), I think we're good to land. The risk of a codepoint change is low.

martinthomson added 5 commits July 30, 2025 15:36

Ignore all SCONE packets

88a70b9

SCONE transport parameter

adf34f4

Add SCONE indication

180fa17

Log SCONE value

9abae10

Add a connection-level test for SCONE

051b44f

martinthomson requested review from KershawChang, larseggert and mxinden as code owners July 30, 2025 06:09

larseggert reviewed Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/params.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/params.rs Outdated

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/packet/mod.rs Outdated

Clippy, review comments

340cab1

mxinden reviewed Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs Outdated

martinthomson commented Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs Outdated

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/packet/mod.rs

Reduce log level for packet drops

61606a8

Conditionally error on other version packets

14a6922

Merge branch 'main' into scone

45866a0

mxinden mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2025

fix(transport): downgrade qwarn to qdebug on pkt_dropped #2876

Merged

mxinden reviewed Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/mod.rs Outdated

Add a further test for Initial before docking two bytes

504465c

martinthomson added 4 commits November 1, 2025 11:46

Merge branch 'main' into scone

f19e25e

More tests with less flake

8cab793

Moar robust testing

d2bda88

Finalize fixes for more tests

e054658

martinthomson added 2 commits November 2, 2025 11:52

dafmt

7633496

Clippy

8825e39

Merge branch 'main' into scone

5cae4b1

Merge branch 'main' into scone

31da46b

larseggert approved these changes Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/tests/priority.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/tests/recovery.rs

Comment thread neqo-transport/src/connection/params.rs

Comment thread test-fixture/src/lib.rs

martinthomson added 2 commits March 13, 2026 12:57

Fix some comments

7d92ee3

Merge branch 'main' into scone

07e4f68

larseggert mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2026

Add and use assert_contains_handshake() #3447

Closed

larseggert added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 13, 2026

Merged via the queue into mozilla:main with commit 4c45dc6 Mar 13, 2026
196 checks passed

omansfeld mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2026

chore: prepare v0.24.0 #3481

Merged

mxinden mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2026

fix: gate SCONE Initial padding on connection parameter #3573

Merged

Conversation

martinthomson commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

mxinden commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

mxinden commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Jul 30, 2025

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

mxinden commented Jul 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Aug 27, 2025

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Nov 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Bencher Report

🚨 3 Alerts

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Nov 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Bencher Report

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Nov 2, 2025

Failed Interop Tests

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest as server

Succeeded Interop Tests

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest as server

Unsupported Interop Tests

neqo-latest as client

neqo-latest as server

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Mar 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 20.14%

Performance Changes

Uh oh!

larseggert commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

martinthomson commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mxinden commented Jul 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Nov 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Nov 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq Bot commented Mar 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading