Re: multiplexing -- don't do it
William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Thu, 05 April 2012 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C0421F87A3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTgLD-KJ+YGD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91BF21F87A8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SFnYs-0005sL-Rk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:18 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1SFnYh-0005qo-Ju for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:07 +0000
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1SFnYd-00056d-SY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:05 +0000
Received: by qcsp15 with SMTP id p15so966744qcs.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-system-of-record; bh=PV6eeZHA9w/j5G/RPY11ZR/ACBbzBnn42iXSl6uDdSg=; b=BPVmedmsYUUEYeOnhY+rZEeYmSG6rogANQESQmpQoFgVA76DWTF30852CitaPHYk8H ftSaZwpWRtssD9nbaL+gSwo0ERQuBWXvlLpZ8bvXKLObn48CRXDqQnnogaaCeXKj5vtW SEm+YaNwNLpmJcNIQUAT+adpXKbgyxXXxXLQsxx7giN7lMj56Z+iJKENbIIB63JvPxRH mNasBdjZEmhfjaB+rjlBXkF/+lUg1YSur3rVVBZlRlOhtbELv70Yf6V12SE3ME79tfJV j3niNEC6MJWMZ48MeAInW2usKZ2IQoQQv741U/asP5izE/5E4IrRoSQgmgmQRuHVEEVH K79g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=PV6eeZHA9w/j5G/RPY11ZR/ACBbzBnn42iXSl6uDdSg=; b=lMZAK0OlTpU9RcJCFIiVofsydTixsaf7v6wKtnvXfhcQ9bN85zgmhjlRxmm4C855Xr m8rth1tcWVROVglWcHKLiWiEiDs1xnlQ/ilL82khP5ELcVKJOnYGVI2pSBbYYAglxOg4 +g8Tf4SeivimWur8EWAd20KO7re1TboXJ5unxb5L85uEyv73fQgAcnNvtY0BmGFmc8AU mIiDhmGSWCZeNLqXV7sI29qcvAm5eNjkaXuOruIFmfOKEgJ8jwU2KVSS6m93L2elWyEr G4zj9U4VixEt/3Z5lL1sN+KElEMElpX+nLNhziM7x7Iw5r99ooR6hOTsrWO61amYB30l M1yA==
Received: by 10.229.134.206 with SMTP id k14mr1102371qct.47.1333635638050; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.134.206 with SMTP id k14mr1102350qct.47.1333635637762; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.229.12.11 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANmPAYGV5AGDUfPjX+Qs8UZRE+7AVoLCapuYCabBZ5gtyDyBuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58913.1333522938@critter.freebsd.dk> <1333544863.2147.446.camel@ds9> <CANmPAYE0LSa4_t9C663BBdnbRgAX-tXNqmjrQ0CFNTUv9Q6g=A@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCtVKPJP5GQqkeOHtwpHonPBBzqx0zL_xJjiNs_XrSF1Cg@mail.gmail.com> <97C8B3E5-966B-46A3-9DF4-D39D8B99DD11@gmail.com> <CAA4WUYiXrP-oHJYO3gFbT63wx97-Q-RzqecF7a0B34YQmTPSZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANmPAYGV5AGDUfPjX+Qs8UZRE+7AVoLCapuYCabBZ5gtyDyBuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:20:37 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0quzfM31E0xXxR4L9M_SPdsg1wg
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjfopus9Sg42xpu3AOH3KLyjoO88v1JGhXpeK9h-rTVWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
To: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00248c6a665e72dbfd04bcef3e0e"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmY5FDbDxNJcdYGvGXQAZR8QMOoygwKsvhjh5Zde+IlVU1cmsID/GfflJLBiLFfy3ikTAh6Gz8mRXY+Qag6gcf7dDnYzsS91w0eRTFTz81sph6bPyBer3xptelS2FsXOgKfuet5xDQAuG8HcOAcKghIWOOfcQ==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.171; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-qc0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SFnYd-00056d-SY 196f8129ec13a639911e2039b5e48676
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: multiplexing -- don't do it
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYjfopus9Sg42xpu3AOH3KLyjoO88v1JGhXpeK9h-rTVWg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13320
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SFnYs-0005sL-Rk@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:18 +0000
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea is just a partial solution to the HOL blocking problem that at > least decreases the likelihood that HOL issue will block high priority > objects. I don't yet know the SPDY protocol well enough but the idea is > that you would have two SPDY streams running over two TCP I suggest you read up on SPDY a bit more first and come back. It may save a lot of people time in explaining things :) At the minimum, read up on SPDY sessions and streams ( http://willchan.github.com/SPDY-Specification/draft-mbelshe-spdy-00.html#rfc.section.2.1 ). connections. Anything that the browser deems as blocking page load, or for > another reason high priority, will go over one SPDY stream and everything > else will go over the other. I think you mean using two SPDY sessions over separate TCP connections. There's nothing in the SPDY specification which says you can't use multiple connections, and that's up to the user-agent. That said, there are downsides to doing so. I think we've already discussed many of the reasons we want to use fewer connections previously, so I won't belabor those points. I think the reason you bring up multiple connections is to work around problems in the transport, which is why I think long-term we should fix the transport layer too. It may be the case that a better client use of SPDY would be to open two connections instead of a single one, but I would push back very strongly against that in Chromium and only do it if we found it was truly necessary. > I agree that a UDP-based transport that supports out of order packets > would completely solve HOL blocking for SPDY. My misunderstanding was that > SCTP was such a transport but Mike set me straight. In any case, there are > no obvious candidates for this so I agree we can't really design for it. > > Still I think we should support inter-object dependencies only if there's > a real benefit, which I believe there is in the upstream but not so sure in > the downstream, as compared to simply going binary. > > Peter > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:25 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the explanation on SCTP -- I have only a high level >>> understanding and based on what you said I can't even claim that. >>> >>> In general, the in-flight HOL blocking problem is really serious for >>> long fat networks: some mobile, intercontinental, satellite to name a few. >>> So I'd like for HTTP 2.0 to at least hold the promise that it will be >>> addressed. For instance, I proposed two SPDY streams, one high and one low >>> priority. This would at least prevent low pri drops from blocking high pri >>> objects. Do you have other better ideas? >>> >> >> Can you explain this proposal further? It doesn't make sense to me as >> stated (What do you mean by two SPDY streams? Are these actual SPDY streams >> from the spec?). If HTTP/2.0 is layered on TCP, then it fundamentally will >> have TCP-level HOL blocking. At the TCP level, there's no concept of >> different priority objects, so any packet drop will delay other packets >> behind it. SPDY did not attempt to address this problem, since there were >> already so many problems higher in the stack. The real solution is to fix >> the transport (new UDP-based protocol anyone?), but that's beyond the scope >> of this work. >> >> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> As long as SPDY is sent over TCP, it also suffers from HOL problems, >>>> just not as bad as pipelining. >>>> >>>> I think SPDY (or whatever the HTTP 2.0 muxing protocol is) should >>>> framed in such a way that if running over a protocol like SCTP, that solves >>>> the HOL problems, we should be able to take advantage of it. Due to gzip >>>> compression of headers, even if the transport allowed me to grab messages >>>> out of order, I'd still have to wait for all packets prior in order to >>>> decode the HTTP headers. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I think people have confusion about layering on top of transport >>> protocols. Any time you have an app protocol that wants to take advantage >>> of new transport features you *MUST* change the definition of how the app >>> protocol is bound to the lower level transport. This absolutely applies to >>> HTTP and TCP/SCTP (not talking about SPDY yet). For example, RFC2616 does >>> *not* specify how to use HTTP over SCTP, and a whole I-D exists for that: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp-01 This I-D >>> defines one possible binding between HTTP and SCTP, but others could exist >>> too. >>> >>> Why is this necessary? Well, TCP has a single, bidirectional stream. >>> SCTP doesn't have bi-directional streams at all, and instead only has >>> multiple, uni-directional streams. So, if you want to leverage the new >>> feature (streams) you need to define how you're going to bind onto it. >>> It's trivial, but doable. >>> >>> If we had SCTP, we wouldn't do MUX and SPDY. It's redundant. That's >>> not to say that HTTP/2.0 is worse with multiplexing, its just to say that >>> we wouldn't need to consider it if the transport already had it. But SCTP >>> is not viable today or even within the next decade. >>> >>> Google sponsored a project at the Univ of Delaware where they >>> investigated SPDY over SCTP already. A couple of bindings for SPDY over >>> SCTP were considered: use stream 0 for a control stream, and send the >>> headers over that stream. This has the nice property that it binds the >>> stateful compression to a single, in-order stream. Also, as you can >>> imagine, it introduces a small amount of HoL there. Another solution was >>> to use N SCTP streams, with M mux'd SPDY streams on top of it. Other such >>> bindings could be considered. Overall, SCTP was too immature to really >>> benchmark. The FreeBSD and Linux implementations of SCTP have many >>> problems already. The UoD guys might want to comment, I found the whole >>> thing non-conclusive. >>> >>> My recommendation: >>> Designing HTTP/2.0 for SCTP is a mistake and should NOT be a >>> requirement. SCTP is not a viable transport over the Internet today, and >>> will not be in the foreseeable future. When it is available, an >>> appropriate binding for HTTP/2.0 can be determined, trivially, and we can >>> worry about it then. This is the same approach that was taken for HTTP >>> with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp-01. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 07:02 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>>>> > In message <20120404054903.GA13883@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> I'm starting to get data back, but not in a state that I'd >>>>> reliably >>>>> > >> release. That said, there are very clear indicators of >>>>> intermediaries >>>>> > >> causing problems, especially when the pipeline depth exceeds 3 >>>>> requests. >>>>> > >>>>> > I always thought that the problem in HTTP/1.x is that you can never >>>>> > quite be sure if there is an un-warranted entity comming after at >>>>> GET, >>>>> >>>>> its not uncommon to have the consumer RST the whole TCP session when >>>>> asked to recv too far beyond the current request it is processing. For >>>>> some devices "too far" appears to be defined as "any new packet". I >>>>> presume some variation of this is where Will's data point comes from. >>>>> (Often 3 uncompressed requests fit in 1 packet). >>>>> >>>>> That class of bug sounds absurd, but its really a pretty common >>>>> pattern. >>>>> As an example: hosts that fail TLS False Start (for which I understand >>>>> second hand that Chrome needs to keep a black-list), react badly >>>>> because >>>>> there is TCP data queued when they are in a state that the expect their >>>>> peer to be quiet. Same pattern. >>>>> >>>>> The lesson to me is that you want to define a tight set of >>>>> functionality >>>>> that is reasonably testable up front - and that's what you can depend >>>>> widely on later. Using anything beyond that demands excessive levels of >>>>> pain, complexity, and cleverness. >>>>> >>>>> (and all this pipelining talk as if it were equivalent to spdy mux is >>>>> kind of silly. Pipelining's intrinsic HOL problems are at least as bad >>>>> of an issue as the interop bugs.) >>>>> >>>>> -Patrick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Brian Pane
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it J Ross Nicoll
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Brian Pane
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Alexey Melnikov
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Julian Reschke
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mark Nottingham
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adam Barth
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re[4]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: Re[4]: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Amos Jeffries
- Re: Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Amos Jeffries
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mark Nottingham
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't do i… Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Ray Polk
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mark Nottingham
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it J Ross Nicoll
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Robert Collins
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re[3]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it patrick mcmanus
- Re: Re[3]: multiplexing -- don't do it Robert Collins
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Amos Jeffries
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Amos Jeffries
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it patrick mcmanus
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Amos Jeffries
- Re[2]: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don… Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Martin Thomson
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- proxy config (was Re: multiplexing -- don't do it) Daniel Stenberg
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it J Ross Nicoll
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Henry Story
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- RE: proxy config (was Re: multiplexing -- don't d… Eric Lawrence
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roy T. Fielding
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Patrick McManus
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- options or protocols? Eliot Lear
- Re: options or protocols? Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: options or protocols? Willy Tarreau
- Re: options or protocols? Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: options or protocols? Willy Tarreau
- Re: options or protocols? Adrien de Croy
- Re: options or protocols? William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: options or protocols? Willy Tarreau
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Patrick McManus
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Jon Leighton
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Nicolas Mailhot
- HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Mark Nottingham
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- RE: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Mark Nottingham
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Jon Leighton
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Carsten Bormann
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Carsten Bormann
- Re: options or protocols? Adrien de Croy
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Mike Belshe
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring David Morris
- Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Stephen Farrell
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Willy Tarreau
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Roberto Peon
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Stephen Farrell
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Willy Tarreau
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Willy Tarreau
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Daniel Stenberg
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: breaking TLS (Was: Re: multiplexing -- don't … Roberto Peon
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it tom
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it tom
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it patrick mcmanus
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it tom
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Jamie Lokier
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Jamie Lokier
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it David Morris
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter Lepeska
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re[4]: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Jamie Lokier
- Portal authorization (was: Re: multiplexing -- do… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: Portal authorization (was: Re: multiplexing -… Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: Portal authorization (was: Re: multiplexing -… Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: Portal authorization Julian Reschke
- Re: Portal authorization Julian Reschke
- Re: Portal authorization Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: Portal authorization Julian Reschke
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Salvatore Loreto
- Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Amos Jeffries
- Re: Portal authorization Amos Jeffries