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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 07:07:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXGRRS8y2jy2MtbfcBAfwxE7MaNHdKU7GwqBmYNk2+Kqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I might just be dense, but I'm not seeing the connection.  I can see
how path MTU affects network performance at the lowest layers, but I'm
not seeing how that affects application layer protocols.  How is one
big frame different from multiple smaller frames at this layer?

On 6 February 2013 06:40, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> --------
> In message <C6B30EDB-32FB-4093-AD74-4B596FC4F0D2@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
>>> I don't think this is good enough.
>>> You'd need ~20k of these frames a second to fill a 10GB ethernet,
>>> and a very large fraction of present day web-objects would require
>>> more than one frame already.
>>Could you please spell out why you think that's a problem?
> As I said before:  If we cannot demonstrate HTTP/2 on a 10GE
> media and argue plausibly that it can be handled on 1Tbit/sec,
> we're writing a standard for the past and not the future.
> Matt Mathis has been pushing similar agenda for IP MTU for years now:
>         http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/
> --
> 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, 6 February 2013 12:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC