W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 19:51:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_hHwZXsP16j4HnvX1xCKmODz_TVfBbMv+tTeFCecu8kUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote:

>  The "per server" approach only works if the server IP corresponds to a
> single host. If the IP actually is served by multiple hosts, then multiple
> healthcheck connections could be served by different instances (with
> different maintenance times). I think in the general case, each HTTP/2
> connection needs this healthcheck.
Yep, we healthcheck per server IP.

> We do healthchecking per server IP for load balancing purposes as well,
> but sometimes the the server IP is actually another proxy tier with many
> hosts (we do L4 load balancing as well).
If the server is another proxy itself (such as an L4 LB or a forward proxy,
etc.) it does its own healthchecking of the backend servers.

> So, I think for the reverse proxy healthchecking approach to work in
> general, you need to do it per connection.
> At any rate, I don't think this approach can be made to work for forward
> proxy.
For forward proxies, we hold onto and then retry requests :(
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 02:51:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC