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

Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:43:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfAQMJL9KpVCGz8SvBtEGfgBY6Wa1Y8BZY0eZF-ohKryA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:55:46PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > > As we suggested in our network-friendly draft, its possible to send
> > > multiple
> > > GET requests at once during the handshake by passing the list of URIs
> in a
> > > dedicated header. It basically allows us not to waste the round trip.
> > >
> >
> > I agree that this can work, assuming all the URLs fit in the headers
> (many
> > servers/proxies have a maximum limit on header size to reduce attack
> > surface) and no other headers are required.
> Agreed but Apache's 8kB per header tends to be around the common usage
> nowadays. And if we have to push 8kB worth of request URIs, we'll often
> hit the initcwnd anyway.
> > Having seen some incredible URLs and headers (e.g. cookies), I'm wary of
> > assuming this is reasonable.
> Agreed but quite frankly, what we're trying to achieve is a way to make
> the web fast for everyone, provided there is no deliberate server-side
> sabotage :-)

I hope we make it fast(er) even in spite of some small dosages of stupid,
but yea, you can't fix stupid. :)

> > For this to work, it also mandates some annoying interaction between the
> > HTTP/1.1 code and whatever follows it.
> Yes, that's what I find a bit annoying eventhough it's not terribly
> complex as long as we support GET requests over URIs with the same
> headers as the first one.
> > > > Having the data in DNS could short-circuit this, but shouldn't be a
> > > > dependency.
> > >
> > > The DNS requires a round trip anyway and it currently where time is
> wasted
> > > in mobile environments.
> > >
> >
> > This is an unavoidable round-trip, though. If you don't know where to go,
> > one must figure that out.
> Not necessarily (eg: explicit proxies). Eventhough the proxy knows it can
> talk 2.0 with the server, how does the client know it can talk 2.0 to the
> proxy ?

Good question. I'd assume proxy.pac or equivalent configuration would have
to spell it out.
In any case, the cost of getting it wrong with most explicit proxy setups
is fairly small because the proxy is generally close.
We need to worry about avoiding additional RTTs when RTTs are big, not so
much when they're small.

> Also, you can still have /etc/hosts pre-filled with some of your operator's
> important services (login portal or whatever helps you troubleshoot your
> connection settings). One might even imagine that common DNS entries could
> regularly be pushed in multicast to end users to save a few round trips. Or
> these entries might have been advertised in HTTP response headers as you
> once
> explained to me :-)

Agreed, in the cases where you've replaced DNS, DNS is irrelevant. :)

> In fact there are plenty of ways to access services over HTTP and I tend to
> find it akwards to increase dependency on DNS.

The idea as I understood it wasn't to add any dependency-- merely a way of
advertising what protocol can be spoken next during what is (for all but
those who ignore DNS). In these cases, the client would attempt the new
protocol first, likely get an error quickly, and downgrade immediately.
With a local proxy, this should not at all be costly as, well, it has a
small RTT to the user.

> > > Maybe this could still be done over the established connection using an
> > > Upgrade ? However, I'd hope we avoid announcing IP and ports in
> exchanges,
> > > as it will cause the NAT mess we managed to avoid for years with HTTP
> and
> > > which made other protocols disappear.
> >
> > I'm not understanding how this would cause NAT messes? I'd guess that
> most
> > external sites would just continue to use :80 and :443.
> There should be a single reliable way of getting a host IP and a port.
> Right
> now it works well. If you change your /etc/hosts to access your development
> site, you reach it without any issue and everything works well. If you want
> to install a reverse-proxy-cache in front of it, you can have this cache
> use the hard-coded IP address and have it work fine.
> At the moment you start exchanging IP addresses in the protocol, you're
> getting
> into trouble. Sometimes the IP is valid, sometimes it doesn't mean
> anything and
> must be rewritten by *someone* along the chain, but most often, this
> *someone*
> doesn't care or is not the same as the one which translates the address. I
> guess
> everyone here has already been involved in helping any admin to rewrite
> Location
> headers that were improperly set by a customer application that had no clue
> about the valid host name or IP from the outside. This is typically the
> situation we should try to avoid.

Everything which doesn't handle this already is significantly broken--
sometimes links have IP addresses in 'em. This is expected and valid for
the web...

> In my opinion, once an IP address and a port are known, whatever the means,
> whether they're entered by hand in a URL bar of a browser, configured in
> /etc/hosts, are specified in a config file as the address of a web service
> or as a next hop for a reverse-proxy, we shouldn't care how that address
> was
> learned, we should be able to use HTTP/2 over it if desired.

Wouldn't the proxy be doing the DNS resolutions here to figure this out?
The client would likely have to do UPGRADE or alternate-protocol or NPN to
the proxy to figure out what it'd be using, but that'd be normal...

> > Some internal sites
> > wouldn't, and the network there is controlled well enough that this
> should
> > cause no problem. In any case, sites are incented to be sure that users
> can
> > connect to them, and will quickly decide to simply keep using :80 and
> :443.
> > When one has an inspecting intermediary, it probably won't like to see
> the
> > upgrade, but probably would be perfectly fine with a different connection
> > (e.g. TLS on :443). There is simply less complexity there, imho.
> Possibly, but this doesn't require relying on a side-band registry to know
> the address and ports. After all, you have enumerated the well-known ports
> above. It could be mandated that if an http connection to :80 fails, a
> browser
> should automatically retry on 443 for instance, without having to deal with
> registries such as DNS which are OK on the internet and never maintainable
> internally, nor with IP addresses advertised in headers.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is yet suggesting *mandating* DNS schemes...

Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 22:43:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:06 UTC