very much so, thanks Willy !!!! On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:57:04PM +0200, Baptiste wrote: > > "Never" unless SPDY become the new standard for HTTP/2.0, validated by > IETF. > > > > To be honest, I talk from time to time to Willy about SPDY protocol. > > And he does not want to implement a protocol which is not a standard > > within HAProxy. > > He prefers waiting for the standardized HTTP/2.0 and because some > > stuff in SPDY are not > > > > F5 is not the only one, boostedge from Activenetworks, nginx, apache > > (through a module), and others have implemented or are implemting > > SPDY. > > > > But Willy is the best person to answer you, I hope he'll answer you soon > :) > > > > Note that I'm on your side: I'd be keen to have SPDY implemented in > > HAProxy. Unfortunately, it's a long time job and HAProxy is missing > > some major features before implementing SPDY (well that's my point of > > view). > > The point is that SPDY is nice and brings a lot of performance boost, but > at the expense of a much more complex infrastructure and a more fragile > handling of DoS attacks. It's around 100 times easier to DoS a SPDY server > than it is for an HTTP server because you can force the server to parse > and process large requests with very few bytes due to the header > compression. > The header compression also means that double buffering becomes mandatory, > which comes with a cost for intermediaries. > > At the moment, SPDY ensures that HTTP/1.1 can be optimized as much as > possible, but there are inherent issues in HTTP/1.1 that have to be > addressed in HTTP/2.0 (CRLF, long header names, folding, etc...). > > That's why with the guys from Squid, Varnish and Wingate we presented > an concurrent proposal to the IETF one month ago : > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00 > > Right now there are 4 drafts for HTTP/2.0 : SPDY, ours (which is really > just a small draft and which we still need to work on), the MS guy's and > hopefully Waka if Roy Fielding finds time to write it and publish it. > > All of these drafts use very different concepts, and with a component > such as haproxy, it can be between 3 and 6 months of work before such > a support is implemented, and maybe more for the most complex ones. > > For this reason, I don't want to implement something which is going to > move soon. It's very likely that most of SPDY will be adopted as HTTP/2, > but better work on HTTP/2 when it takes shape than work on SPDY right > now and throw everything away once it's just finished. > > Hoping this clarifies the situation, > > Willy > > -- /* Joe Stein, 973-944-0094 http://www.medialets.com Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop> */
