- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:05:12 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdBB9bZ0Kc-O5r0wpeWKrL+uxjaPvPSHO0fsrPbYSu31g@mail.gmail.com>
That (http2 client -> http2 proxy -> http1 server) could be beneficial for mobile devices in terms of both latency and battery life, so it isn't something we should dismiss. -=R On Aug 6, 2012 12:14 AM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <emc0d9c202-4de9-42a4-afcd-3e0714b94f4b@reboist>, "Adrien de > Croy" w > rites: > > >>From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> > >> > >>Where does 2.0<-->1.1 conversion _realistically_ come into play ? > > >You mean where are we most likely to see 2.0 down-graded to 1.1? > > > >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. > > So yeah, you have a shiny new protocol, but it doesn't do anything > for you... > > (The GET https://... thing can be done as extension to 1.1 also, > so that is not a deciding factor) > > The RTT performance gain of 2.0 only happens once 2.0 deploys on > the far (ie: server) side of things. > > So I think the interesting use-case is the opposite of what > you suggest: 1.1 to proxy, 2.0 to server. > > About the only other place I see a credible case for conversion > is a 1.1+2.0 load-balancer and a 1.1- or 2.0- only server. > > The 2.0->1.1 case I can conceiveably see, in a somewhat strange set > of circumstances, but the 1.1->2.0 case seems entirely speculative > for the next many years. > > Given how much simpler it will be for everybody, I still see a > "same version, end to end" model as very attractive. > > Of course 1.1 and 2.0 must still interoperate, in particular we > need to be able to upgrade (and later downgrade ?) on port 80. > > But I really have a hard time seeing the a business-case for > specifying conversion of individual requests and responses between > 1.1 and 2.0. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > >
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 16:05:43 UTC