- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:05:10 +0100
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Pat, On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:44:09PM -0500, Patrick McManus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > That was one of the issue I raised several times a few months ago > > explaining why I think DNS alone cannot be a solution. > > > > > it cannot do the job alone - but it can provide the best service (i.e. > similar level of service as NPN on tls) Except that NPN is not mangled by invisible intermediaries. > for many best-practice use cases of > http://. Other cases can use an additional approach (alternate-protocol, > upgrade, etc..) which will certainly be necessary to fill in the gaps. SRV > is essentially a routing mechanism, if you're doing routing some other way > (i.e. a proxy, or a port in the URL, or something that manipulates your > dns) then don't use it. We'll need to also provide another option. But the problem is that you don't know that you're passing through proxies, otherwise I would have no problem with this. > But it is totally forseeable to see http://www.example.com/ generate > > A? www.example.com > > return > A = 10.10.10.10 > Additional Records: {SRV _http2-npn._tcp.www.example.com port=443 host= > www.example.com , > SRV > _http2-cleartext._tcp.www.example.comport=81 host= > www.example.com} > > and that's a pretty darn powerful sequence that should imo be enabled. I don't claim it's not powerful, I'm saying that it does not offer benefits from a deployment point of view above other solutions, but it comes with a whole bunch of new issues. After how long do you decide that port 81 fails to connect ? And how do you offer the end-user the possibility to connect via port 80 which he *knows* works ? Does "http://www.example.com:80/" suffice to force HTTP/1 over port 80 or will some browsers just attempt raw http2 over that port ? Also the other issue here is that the web becomes totally fragmented, with any user advertising random ports, including the port 6000 range that is well-known to pass through many firewalls due to some X11 pass-through, etc... In the end, for proxy and firewall admins, it becomes a nightmare to minimally secure their installations. You see, all these are issues that are overlooked from the DNS admin, but which are realities on the end-user side. This is why I don't believe that the server-side admin knows better than his visitors how they should connect to the net. Regards, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 23:05:43 UTC