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

Re: h2#373 HPACK attack mitigation options

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:14:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcjVDJXB2W-SAJA9iH2rnKadhh+_8jW5m8-Axe_eWhxuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I have use-cases where I'd like to mux many connections onto one, e.g. when
I may not have enough ephemereal port space to serve that number of
The advantage is not theoretical there :)

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> Roberto,
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue isn't the reference set in this case, rather it is that the
> originator of the request != the destination for the request, which allows
> the originator to probe the compressor dynamic state-table.
> If options 1 or 4 are taken, then grouping or some similar signaling may
> need to be reintroduced. Opening an outgoing connection for each incoming
> connection is not the greatest thing in the world as it defeats several of
> the nice properties of HTTP/2.
> FWIW, it wouldn't be the end of the world as you are still reducing the
> connection load from N connections per client to 1 per client - probably an
> order of magnitude difference with today's browsers.
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 13:14:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC