- From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:06:36 -0800 (PST)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > From: hardie@merlot.arc.nasa.gov (Ted Hardie) > > I notice in the issues list that the persistent connection subgroup > agreed that the presence of persistent connections would not be > used to limit connections to a specific small number. If there is > more information on that decision, I would like to see it, even in > a rough form. > > We basically agreed that (1) there would be no way to enforce > a limit on the number of connections, and (2) there was clear > evidence that the optimal number is greater than 1. However, The optimal number of connections is bounded above by one for just about every case I can think of. Further, I don't agree that there is no way to restrict the number of connections available to a given host; there are lots of ways ranging from the TCP stack to the application layer. What I think you argued was that it was undesirable to do this in case the host in question was a big proxy. Simon --- They say in online country So which side are you on boys There is no middle way Which side are you on You'll either be a Usenet man Which side are you on boys Or a thug for the CDA Which side are you on? National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37 APL-CPIO
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 1996 17:07:09 UTC