W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: 2.0 and Radio Impacts/battery efficiency

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:16:39 +0200
To: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com, zhong.j.yu@gmail.com, salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120414191639.GH19802@1wt.eu>
Hi William,

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 09:56:22AM -0700, William Chan (?????????) wrote:
> I'm speculating here, but a proxy deployed by the mobile service provider
> may have a reasonable estimate of the radio state.
> I think Roberto is just being succinct here, but to further drive the point
> of explicit proxies rather than implicit proxies here, an explicit proxy
> will let the client multiplex (SPDY / HTTP2.0) to the proxy, and not just
> to origin servers. This way, even if the origin server FINs a connection,
> the proxy won't have to deliver a FIN to the client, since the
> client<=>proxy connection hasn't closed. And even if it has, the proxy
> could choose to do implicit closes (no FIN) rather than explicit closes.
> Future traffic would either get a TCP RST, or if it's a SPDY-type proxy,
> SPDY PINGs will allow detecting dead connections to the proxy.

I agree. I've been pushing hard to get explicit proxies working at an
operator because it only offers benefits :
  - no wasted round-trip in DNS requests
  - persistent connections => no more SYN/FIN
  - TCP uses optimal congestion window
  - pipelining always possible from the very first request

Received on Saturday, 14 April 2012 19:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC