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

Re: Proxies and packet loss

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:57:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYghWKOmzKDD47bEYT9jHqH13P9n6pTOLF5+e3Dfb1Tbzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
While I have lots of caveats about this paper (which I haven't written up
yet), I think it correctly identifies that multiple connections are not the
solution: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2013/program/p303.pdf. See
section 6.1. The real solution is to fix the transport.


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:

> This draft (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-white-httpbis-spdy-analysis-00)
> documents that there is a "fairly significant performance loss with SPDY"
> in tests that introduced packet loss. The primary reason for this is that
> fewer TCP connections are used so a single packet drop reduces bandwidth
> for a greater % of the traffic at any given time.
>
> I fear that this effect will be still worse when browsers are using a
> single TCP connection to a SDPY (or HTTP/2) proxy when accessing multi-host
> sites and that therefore we may want to make specific recommendations about
> multiple TCP connection use when talking to explicit proxies.
>
> I'm not sure this is something that should be mentioned in the core spec
> (and discussed as part of open issue #413 on proxies) but perhaps in a
> follow-on specification dedicated to proxy use in HTTP/2 -- maybe built on
> Mark's proxy draft?
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-00.txt.
>
> I'm happy to help out on such a proxy spec if it's something the group
> would like to take on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 16:57:36 UTC

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