- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:16:39 +0200
- To: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com, zhong.j.yu@gmail.com, salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi William, On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 09:56:22AM -0700, William Chan (?????????) wrote: > I'm speculating here, but a proxy deployed by the mobile service provider > may have a reasonable estimate of the radio state. > > I think Roberto is just being succinct here, but to further drive the point > of explicit proxies rather than implicit proxies here, an explicit proxy > will let the client multiplex (SPDY / HTTP2.0) to the proxy, and not just > to origin servers. This way, even if the origin server FINs a connection, > the proxy won't have to deliver a FIN to the client, since the > client<=>proxy connection hasn't closed. And even if it has, the proxy > could choose to do implicit closes (no FIN) rather than explicit closes. > Future traffic would either get a TCP RST, or if it's a SPDY-type proxy, > SPDY PINGs will allow detecting dead connections to the proxy. I agree. I've been pushing hard to get explicit proxies working at an operator because it only offers benefits : - no wasted round-trip in DNS requests - persistent connections => no more SYN/FIN - TCP uses optimal congestion window - pipelining always possible from the very first request Willy
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2012 19:17:16 UTC