Re: Redirection to Other IP Addresses

Jack Firth <jackhfirth@gmail.com> Thu, 01 August 2019 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 CCA7A120025 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 00:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lIYjMzHh5nR2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 00:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164BD12000F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 00:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ht5KO-0003JB-SZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 07:16:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 07:16:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ht5KO-0003JB-SZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jackhfirth@gmail.com>) id 1ht5KE-0003Ho-6G for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 07:16:34 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jackhfirth@gmail.com>) id 1ht5KD-0007A4-M5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 07:16:34 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jackhfirth@gmail.com>) id 1ht413-0003Gf-Mx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 05:52:41 +0000
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jackhfirth@gmail.com>) id 1ht411-0005Wt-Cl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 05:52:41 +0000
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id 201so51049112qkm.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y4L2WSLmbReH0BNvdBDijskgQTrYj06rdRxr+PeRKvc=; b=vZhXye9ScstY6azZUmoBb2JeGSdwyyCWSFpF6qAeXaHVvlKm6ugDkQgImCottGamJ6 RkEmLps5sSais8ivE4C5jdXf+yZ1fKn68sutEc6EGCcVmGNBzV318TwJkX0e/fN0xJ/g qhhelqrfCIUhNJJ2UWOLrpkja+JG+ULSjA/J2aU4wrVcQb3jqqbd3PVX75m3f7XOhiCS fhEy2XFxn8rBeqeS9CxBXmOnym/O2KK15eiilHaY+4owPbPhPlOgWi9sUYnzenntBoyu uACcSGQKFHfnzrytUfU3UE9ZWCvqFHst9HOygWfYI+LmYOVBNLrqioy9KaHXfVfMQKld XiaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y4L2WSLmbReH0BNvdBDijskgQTrYj06rdRxr+PeRKvc=; b=ZJirRtZuCeTQsHKxeSE08VmYSYgnvdB1ReJvN5nUn2JnIR9pY7/CKilfQhA83ah4X1 gdD1sBRTGP5NwgzPuquRFceNClsNDYXWnQPlnNlnuq1nZ/BJrLRtkiCwW7F1JYo1vDhL zE/FwAUCAJAGNAd+vvBXvsDPsSxglxV9/mP0xHX8Vuyo+LSLzuVTQcFaNnymWXlye8Dl TriuuUVNfypaJrFukeTgA++/BHGWHwhxqaL8s6cRbNtM/JMzT8CuY9iQSg4xis2hOHO9 bb4GcJUwrqUMGudsLbr9zujkZXCN5G82F1f1l49ffGthLWjbdRjACJDZGYR+ep2vPIbW yWLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZUSOYUiLEybsSjWo6C4fC2WkXVcVvqgtxiYP4oZb6uL4k9sMl APDOzGokmx5MWSybUyuSNip7PSGsoURyAgMu/5jM9fPKU6w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2RhPPNHg8nBQW+4TRJiM1pyACyVEYPai/UzDkiFpGQrf8rMKPnE5TY3v+8LPJGPxDotUji4PZXQKn2oMIdSU=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9185:: with SMTP id t127mr78774575qkd.405.1564638738418; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFifEMLOHp5=OqUXZbg_WKNQmNsTW3Bg5P4btJdX06CF=Wi2AA@mail.gmail.com> <d9b03ef6-9c8c-1eb2-7f74-014f9703475d@gmx.de> <CAJ_4DfQifbJJ7owfrgUUOqXimL-KQkb4-1f_Qp6+CMjhYC1bbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFifEMJPZd9CGghi_MJ1Hrcq7TJNnkV6yH-EKtrrfaQmStS4Ug@mail.gmail.com> <b09ab672-f512-52bc-6c28-7df55919a846@gmx.de> <CAFifEM+TXtsxTt-NcH+hQomEAYZmMTW_kPxXvQB69eM4KgGf7g@mail.gmail.com> <d4d25ceb-09b5-72ff-6c36-7fdfc2796b15@gmx.de> <CAFifEMKff11nmJZgE1RGWT8qH6SKsO2tqWCF9vQsvF5=BMeQgg@mail.gmail.com> <45C10C32-DA87-4AE3-9082-DAAFD5D9C412@vcontractor.co.za> <CAHbrMsAE1ZezM5U_b2s3juc4OC0LJDOpyHfek7Pu2AaQcXpf8A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWP63pT08X4QkUmk6KT_U98LjiFvNaTNg5ZtVMG3AFiFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFifEMLnSB5SYb_q0toTE3Xy1i56=14ki=__91Phc76HHL+ZhQ@mail.gmail.com> <f05b5157-f068-1e03-8422-36d0425a32a5@treenet.co.nz> <CAFifEMLQXUSHKOjKN9JR87ht1UUvf-1AEWKNmuKeOqKyzjT28Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJEGKNtWvXyrFLU0KW-rqN1qd-PLOqobjx1o6kRcH27_O9Ri7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAFifEMKhjU=EmMj6yyVN5D1aSfCVi9HAWgE-Ebzu8NscKQpv_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJEGKNvoKijzJsTOSE0w08wst=zxoTa95Jx8xVfRWmCWJTJ=4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFifEMLrWwBoPDQZiHvp65zwS+0CEka1sSoLMYQo6ydYit3aNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFifEMLrWwBoPDQZiHvp65zwS+0CEka1sSoLMYQo6ydYit3aNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Firth <jackhfirth@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:52:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAXAoJUdJP-WUa8sxt_3L+=09wQb_UUOGq0517ibzYrVoU8aOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>
Cc: Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000348fba058f07d8e8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::736; envelope-from=jackhfirth@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk1-x736.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1ht411-0005Wt-Cl 22d15191f2b7ecbb9654686416eccdcd
X-caa-id: 390d0c74a4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Redirection to Other IP Addresses
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAAXAoJUdJP-WUa8sxt_3L+=09wQb_UUOGq0517ibzYrVoU8aOA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36910
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

>
> Versus with "alt-svc", the server will serve the content for the current
> request, client will finish receiving the response and MAYBE connect to the
> new IP for the next request.


Could you return a 4xx error with the Alt-Svc header set, and a body
message that tells clients they must use the Alt-Svc if they don't want to
get a 4xx? Or even a generic 300? It seems reasonable to me for a CDN
server to refuse to serve requests it knows will be prohibitively
expensive, while providing clients with Alt-Svc as a way to find a
less-expensive alternative.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:55 PM Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>; wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> There are a few caveats in your reasoning:
> 1.  It does not have to be some "accept header". It can be the
> "User-Agent" header as I mentioned, for example, chrome version > 100. Or
> on contract. For example, some CDN customers have full control of the
> client software. They just tell the CDN provider that "you can enable the
> 312 redirection on all of our domains".
> 2. Even when it does rely on some "accept header", there is still a
> critical difference from "alt-svc":
>     In this proposal, the current request will not be served. The client
> will get a 312 and forced to reconnect to the new IP, similar to the 30X
> redirection.
>     Versus with "alt-svc", the server will serve the content for the
> current request, client will finish receiving the response and MAYBE
> connect to the new IP for the next request.
>
> Hope this is more clear. Please don't hesitate with more questions!
> Thanks!
>
> Bin
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:49 PM Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> So, the typical mechanism for that would be an accept header of some
>> sort. But if clients are opting into the redirect, then the redirect is
>> effectively optional. Any client that would set the accept header can
>> instead just support alt-svc today and choose to redirect.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:39 PM Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Great question!
>>> The solution is that the server will only return the new status code 312
>>> if it is sure the client can support it.
>>> The information can be from the User-Agent header, or some other request
>>> header.
>>> Or communicated through some other channel, for example, on a paper
>>> contract.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Bin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:36 PM Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I have to wonder about the end usefulness from an implementation
>>>> perspective. Part of why alt-svc works is that it's optional, so
>>>> servers can use them as optimization but everything else still works.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a new protocol that means basically "alt-svc, but
>>>> mandatory", it means the CDN, load balancer, or similar service simply
>>>> wouldn't work for any client that didn't understand the new value.
>>>> There are a _lot_ of http clients out there. This would be a fairly
>>>> high barrier to adoption, which would create a chicken-and-egg problem
>>>> that would be tough to solve.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bin Ni <nibin@quantil.com>; wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Amos and All,
>>>> >
>>>> > Regarding the 30X redirect across different cache servers, it is
>>>> already used by many big CDN companies that I know of.
>>>> > It is proven to make the system faster without much burden on the
>>>> front-end layer which you are concerned.
>>>> > But 30X has the limitations I mentioned. This is why I'm proposing
>>>> this new type of redirection to address the limitations.
>>>> >
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gtF6Nq3iPe44515BfsU18dAxfCYOvQaekiezK8FEHu0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> > So it is not a question that this proposal will be useful or not.
>>>> > I know it will at least be very useful to those CDNs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for your comments.
>>>> > Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bin
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:38 AM Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>;
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 30/07/19 7:02 am, Bin Ni wrote:
>>>> >> > Yes, what we want is a way to force a "deterministic behavior from
>>>> the
>>>> >> > client", just like all the 30X redirections today.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Let me give a few more cases in which this can be helpful:
>>>> >> > 1. A client in North America is returned a server IP in Europe by
>>>> the
>>>> >> > DNS. The server then wants to direct the client to another server
>>>> in
>>>> >> > North America for better performance.
>>>> >> > 2. The content of a website is hashed to multiple servers based on
>>>> URL.
>>>> >> > These multiple servers may not even be in the same datacenter. The
>>>> DNS
>>>> >> > does not have this information and may return any IP to any query
>>>> of the
>>>> >> > website's hostname.  Each server will calculate the hash for each
>>>> >> > request and redirect client to the correct server that has the
>>>> content.
>>>> >> > This is quite common for CDN.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is common for good reason: efficiency.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is a secondary level of efficiency that comes from the
>>>> redirects
>>>> >> being actual HTTP 30x redirects. Having large objects at different
>>>> URL
>>>> >> entirely provides for a different CDN or caching layer closer to the
>>>> >> client to provide the large object contents. DNS can be (often is)
>>>> >> involved in that layer to provide the closest server IP.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As proposed so far your mechanism would flatten this two-tier
>>>> structure.
>>>> >> Forcing the frontend layer (now only layer) to be involved in
>>>> deciding
>>>> >> the specific hardware location of individual objects / resources.
>>>> >>  Making the frontend machinery store more information and do more
>>>> work
>>>> >> per-request is not going to make the system faster, quite the
>>>> opposite.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> By separating the work into the three layers: frontend LB, cache, and
>>>> >> origin. Each CDN layer gets some orders of magnitude increase in
>>>> >> performance / capacity:
>>>> >>  - origin able to handle/generate some few thousand responses per
>>>> second,
>>>> >>  - cache able to re-distribute those as static objects at line speed
>>>> for
>>>> >> an order or two magnitude more than origins,
>>>> >>  - frontend LB able to handle millions of the small ~1KB
>>>> >> request/response pairs for redirection spreading that high load
>>>> across
>>>> >> the lower layers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> AYJ
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>