W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1996

Re: Number of connections (was: Re: HTTP Working Group 'issues' list)

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
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960214165204.10283E-100000@chivalry>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC