Hi Willy, Sorry to bother you, just a quick question if I may.
Does support for QUIC imply we'd have rudimentary UDP support as well or is it only going to support QUIC Protocol? Aaron West Loadbalancer.org Ltd. www.loadbalancer.org +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 aa...@loadbalancer.org LEAVE A REVIEW | DEPLOYMENT GUIDES | BLOG On 15 October 2017 at 18:02, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > Hi Sander, > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I haven't been paying much attention to the list lately, but I am wondering >> what the current status of http/2 support is in 1.8-(dev|snapshot). >> >> Is it in a usable-but-needs testing state? Or more like >> stay-away-because-it-kills-kittens state? > > The code I posted was not merged because it was experimental and I was > not satisfied with what the architecture would look like in the long > term. So I kept it handy "just in case" but didn't want to merge it. > > Now after several failed attempts and with a lot of design sessions > with my coworkers, I've made a good progress on a totally different > approach which will later allow us to implement HTTP/2 on both sides, > as well as implement support for QUIC. I have not merged anything yet > because as I'm picking code from the first implementation, I regularly > encounter obstacles that I need to overcome and this leads to lots of > rebases to keep only bisectable code. The good point is that the code > that finally settles there is much better and contains much less hacks. > > If anyone is interested, I can publish a work-in-progress branch once > in a while, but for now the code in this branch only supports establishing > a connection and exchanging PING frames, so that's totally useless, which > is why I've not considered publishing it for now :-/ > > If everything goes well, the final rebased and cleaned up code should > be available for a release candidate by the end of the month. > > Stay tuned! > Willy >