W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:28:13 +0000
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <18394.1359588493@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E401FD356@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>, Larry Masinter writes:

>The impact was only if those high-performance implementations were using
>single IP address for multiple host names.
>
>(Which would kind of be antithetical to a high-performance deployment, no?)

Uhm, have you read this ?

	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553

Even very high performance sites have multiple FQDNs per IP number these
days and the Host: header is often more important than the URI, because
high-performance load-balancers route HTTP only using that.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 23:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 23:28:37 GMT