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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:17:57 +0200
To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140707181757.GD32346@1wt.eu>
Hi Nicholas,

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:53:06AM -0700, Nicholas Hurley wrote:
> So now we're resurrecting jumbo frames. Again. I've already said "no" to
> this, and apparently I have to say it again. No jumbo frames, no large
> frames. Anyone who cares to see my reasoning against
> jumbo/large/huge/whatever frames is welcome to go back and read the
> archives.
> 
> This is a HUGE change to the spec in order to make people feel better about
> cases that make up 0.02% of the streams out there. Why are we continuing to
> spend time and energy on this?

With all due respect, I think you've only expressed personal preference on
that subject with no defendable argument.

For example, the 0.02% you're talking about are the ones that *require*
support for CONTINUATION in *all* implementations and which make all
these implementations prone to slowloris-like attacks (for example).

Also concerning the numbers, I too have posted elements (please check
the archives) indicating that video already represents 60% of the
internet traffic and is deemed to 78% by 2018. *All* video traffic
will more or less significantly be hurt by the limit to 3 pages per
data block. Some people have already reported that 16kB over WiFi
is small and that doubling that size almost doubles the performance.
I think that allowing this value to easily grow in agreement with
both sides will leave more room for better supporting various
transport media.

Best regards,
Willy
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 18:18:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC