Re: options or protocols?

apologies all... email client put sig at top instead of bottom.... sigh


On 5/04/2012 10:59 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>
> ----
> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
> WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
>> If we apply a correct fallback to 1.1, your product will still be
>> able to control the traffic as 1.1. This is why I think that it is
>> very important to be backwards compatible with 1.1 : the upgrade is
>> the most transparent possible and admins have no reason to explicitly
>> block it. If we're not compatible, many admins will not make the effort
>> of opening the new port since it will require equipments they don't
>> have.
>>
>
> Existing compliant 1.1 proxies will remove the Upgrade header, since 
> it references a protocol that it won't know yet.
>
> Unless it already adopts a strategy of getting out of the way (moving 
> to tunnel).
>
> Do we have any idea about how many will pass it through and therefore 
> allow 2.0 to function?
>
> Otherwise these things will keep their users in 1.1 land until they 
> are upgraded
>
>>>
>>> I also suspect there is a plethora of cheap DSL/NAT routers which do
>>> port 80 inspection which may break.  Whether they break in a way that
>>> prevents operation or not is another matter.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that WebSocket readily uses this mechanism and that such
>> bugs are already being reported to vendors. By the time we ship HTTP/2.0
>> a number of these implementation bugs will have been fixed, and not
>> everyone will have deployed V2 anyway.
>>
>
> OK.  Would be interesting to see stats on rates of failure and why - 
> if you have any.
>
> Adrien
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Willy
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 23:07:58 UTC