- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:46:18 +0200
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@gmail.com>, grahame@healthintersections.com.au, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:07:19AM -0400, Patrick McManus wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 08:09 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:22:24PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > > The issue with HTTP/2 will indeed be the same as with IPv6 : HTTP/2 will > > be deployed between the browser and the load balancer, and everything > > behind will remain HTTP/1 due to the added nuisances of deploying 2.0 > > everywhere. > > Except we know that in the very near future SPDY adoption will have > reached far more people than IPv6 ever has. So, unlike IPv6, there is a > big demand to solve the problems it addresses. > > > Almost nobody does IPv6 between LB and server nowadays, it's > > added cost for no benefit. > > > > of course spdy has lots of benefits. key difference :) Not between the LB and the server. It has benefits on the issues it was designed to solve : the quality of the connection to the end user. Regards, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 15:46:47 UTC