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: Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:22:10 +0200
Message-ID: <510A61F2.4000407@ngtech.co.il>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
On 1/31/2013 1:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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.
>
The only reason they use the Host: header is since it's there.
It can be simply measured if needed.

-- 
Eliezer Croitoru
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 12:22:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2013 12:22:59 GMT