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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:16:51 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78753.1404775011@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNfLuFj9aFVVzy6khFBZHmB5FMeFm0+2GLSw_KVQQppyqg@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon wri
tes:

>Lets make it concrete.
>Client A,is speaking to a proxy B, to servers C, D.
>Server C wants a max header limit of 4k.
>Server D wants a max header limit of 8k.
>
>What does proxy B do?

What is proxy B's job? 

If proxy B is a corporate SOX-compliance proxy that needs your
kerberos ticket to let you through, it will tell you that it
takes 64K frames and send you 413 if the headerset is bigger
than what C or D (depending on Host:) will accept, after having
stripped the Kerberos ticket out.

If proxy B is a CDN with two servers behind RFC1149 connectivity,
it will announce something big enough for what you might send
and then it will file away at the headers, in contract with
server C and D, until they are small enough to tied to the legs.

If proxy B is a load-balancer in front of C and D, it will
advertise the max, ie 8K, and if you send an 8K header
destined for server C, it will either send you a 413 or
in contract with server C rewrite the request so server
C gets to emit the 413.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 23:17:15 UTC

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