- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:37:54 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:11:35AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >I think this will be extremely common for a very long time. > > > >2.0 client talks to 2.0 local proxy talking to 1.1 internet. > > That's not a terribly interesting use-case is it ? > > The RTT to a local proxy is not prohibitive, so running HTTP/2.0 > on that path will gain you very little performance, and insisting > on running both 2.0 and 1.1 would cost very little, since the > link is very likely a LAN. This use case should prevail in mobile environments. Your smartphone should have an explicit proxy configured (instead of passing via an interception proxy) that will also save it from round trips caused by DNS requests. I really think that the biggest savings we could expect from 2.0 and by far is to have smartphones communicate via their operator's explicit proxies. Regards, Willy
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 08:38:26 UTC