- From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 07:13:54 -0800
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > > >>The window size needs to be larger than 64k to fully utilize such links. > > Just got off the phone, it was the 1980'ies which wanted their > protocol design parameters back, will you handle that ? :-) > > There is no need to negotiate a maximum frame size, because the > length comes up front, so the receiver can always chop it up to > more manageable bits if it cannot process it in the full size. The "chop it up to more manageable bits" approach works for data frames, where a load balancer receiving a large frame can chop it up, thereby maintaining a limit on per-connection memory usage. But it doesn't work for control frames; there already are use cases where a load balancer will need to see the entirety of a control frame in order to decide where/whether to route it. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 15:14:22 UTC