Re: 2.0 and Radio Impacts/battery efficiency

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 14 April 2012 19:19 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 4782321F85AA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 dZ9zmDA+yPnI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C533D21F8597 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SJ8TQ-0004Kw-Ua for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:17:28 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SJ8TE-0004JY-HA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:17:16 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SJ8TB-0002yq-B7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:17:14 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q3EJGd36025506; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:16:39 +0200
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:16:39 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com, zhong.j.yu@gmail.com, salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120414191639.GH19802@1wt.eu>
References: <4F8697C2.5000702@ericsson.com> <CACuKZqGA9Tyv_zhO2HhyLNvqvzNCrTyZYy+b_Tt616F7eLbT1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcGfj_G1U9nWA5qj+tW8rWwMn0+HVhYA40XXQg_hWfTuA@mail.gmail.com> <4F87E856.1000604@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7621CEF37@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <CAP+FsNc-AwqPmGrvgg7y1s+Son0+dKvvpO3HST6xim2ZjCU8Xw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhk_K7mL2ggOGvHqeae11OyZ+8aLfEMxOkds4=Hdc_h+w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYhk_K7mL2ggOGvHqeae11OyZ+8aLfEMxOkds4=Hdc_h+w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1SJ8TB-0002yq-B7 17dbe49e2add30c8256e76c664e66a1d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2.0 and Radio Impacts/battery efficiency
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120414191639.GH19802@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13444
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: <E1SJ8TQ-0004Kw-Ua@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:17:28 +0000

Hi William,

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 09:56:22AM -0700, William Chan (?????????) wrote:
> I'm speculating here, but a proxy deployed by the mobile service provider
> may have a reasonable estimate of the radio state.
> 
> I think Roberto is just being succinct here, but to further drive the point
> of explicit proxies rather than implicit proxies here, an explicit proxy
> will let the client multiplex (SPDY / HTTP2.0) to the proxy, and not just
> to origin servers. This way, even if the origin server FINs a connection,
> the proxy won't have to deliver a FIN to the client, since the
> client<=>proxy connection hasn't closed. And even if it has, the proxy
> could choose to do implicit closes (no FIN) rather than explicit closes.
> Future traffic would either get a TCP RST, or if it's a SPDY-type proxy,
> SPDY PINGs will allow detecting dead connections to the proxy.

I agree. I've been pushing hard to get explicit proxies working at an
operator because it only offers benefits :
  - no wasted round-trip in DNS requests
  - persistent connections => no more SYN/FIN
  - TCP uses optimal congestion window
  - pipelining always possible from the very first request

Willy