- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:43:19 -0700
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Rajeev Bector <rbector@yahoo-inc.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Doug Beaver <doug@fb.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABaLYCuqZw8R7XqJy-PzibMSkGVS7ZnOdd5dk3-Q1T8+MpVgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > we can already transfer many objects over a single connection with HTTP/1.1 > > SPDY without SSL would be more speedy than with it. > > There may be only a couple R-Ts to get an SSL handshake, but sprinkle on a > CRL / OCSP check and you're left eating dust. > > So, let's just get this straight for the record. SSL will not improve > latency. It will make it worse, and for many people (on > already-high-latency links) a LOT worse. > Of course, no-SSL is lower latency than SSL. It's not 3 RTs all the time, but yes, OSCP can add a lot, and SSL implementations vary. But SPDY gains a lot of this back with fewer connections, multiplexing, and compression. Don't forget to implement SSL False Start in your client. Obviously an un-optimized SSL stack will have a harder time than an optimized one. But its not true that every bit of latency is more important than security. Note that Google has reported overall latency of SPDY + SSL is faster than HTTP without SSL or SPDY. Mike > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Rajeev Bector" <rbector@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>;"Martin Thomson" < > martin.thomson@gmail.com>;"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > Cc: "Doug Beaver" <doug@fb.com>;"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>;" > ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 18/07/2012 3:26:56 p.m. > Subject: Re: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest > > Arguably, the cost of 3 Rts is amortized over many many objects that > gets transferred over the session. That said, I am trying to imagine how to > do crypto on my Arduino :-). > > > From: "Adrien W. de Croy" < <adrien@qbik.com>adrien@qbik.com> > Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" < <adrien@qbik.com>adrien@qbik.com> > Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:20:09 -0700 > To: Martin Thomson < <martin.thomson@gmail.com>martin.thomson@gmail.com>, > "Martin J. Dürst" < <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > Cc: Doug Beaver < <doug@fb.com>doug@fb.com>, Willy Tarreau < <w@1wt.eu> > w@1wt.eu>, " <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <<ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Subject: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Martin Thomson" < <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > martin.thomson@gmail.com> > > On 17 July 2012 19:35, "Martin J. Dürst" < <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > > > So why are we okay with 10-20% more processing costs for everybody, but not > with 10-20% more bandwidth? What's different between processing costs and > bandwidth? > > > > Personally, I thought that the first optimization was for latency, > > How do you optimise latency by adding 3 RTs in a SSL setup? > > > > with bandwidth as secondary and (obviously) consequential. Trade-offs > may have to be made. > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 03:43:48 UTC