W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing different hosts on a single SSL connections

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:35:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeeXBpivtjAH0urbzWhLANnuUOfzMh9fkSxasVytnQomA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Safruti, Ido" <ido@akamai.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That is one of the ideas we've had for SPDY/4.
Specifically, with name resolution push and with cert data push, a server
could prove that it was authoritative for a domain, and prove that the
client should send requests down the connection.
Of course, name resolution push will be interesting for load balancing,
brownout avoidance, and other goodies, but... I haven't had time to write
up the whitepaper on all this yet. <rueful grin>


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Safruti, Ido <ido@akamai.com> wrote:

> Hi Roberto, thanks for the note,
> I know that currently this is the way chrome works.
> However, assuming multiplexing will be part of http/2.0, and performance
> as well I am wondering if we can extend that notion.
> Can the server send a validation on an existing SSL connection to validate
> it is also good for another domain/cert.
> Obviously we would want to use another cert for the connection, so that
> you won't be able to decipher one hosts message by having the cert of
> another.
> Anyhow  I'll move it to spdy dev, but it looks like a TLS issue.
> From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
> To: Ido Safruti <ido@akamai.com>
> Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: multiplexing different hosts on a single SSL connections
> If the cert you got from the original connection matches the new host you
> wish to go to, AND the DNS resolution for that host overlaps with the IP of
> the connection you already have, then Chrome will attempt to reuse the
> connection.
> spdy-dev is probably a better list for discussing this, since this is a
> SPDY implementation question.
> -=R
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Safruti, Ido <ido@akamai.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I remember reading some ideas about how to enable that on the spdy group.
>> Obviously there are different security and privacy considerations for
>> doing that, but there are some performance benefits, especially for
>> proxies/intermediate.
>> I am not sure it is in the scope of HTTP/2.0 and if this mailing list the
>> right place to discuss this?
>> Is it covered/discussed as part of some other effort?
>> - Ido
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 07:36:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC