Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 02 March 2016 23:41 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E097C1B3528 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:41:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 44wuy3ZKqtRt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B56A1B3527 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1abGJx-0002Zf-4J for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:36:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:36:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1abGJx-0002Zf-4J@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abGJs-0002YX-M9 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:36:40 +0000
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abGJq-0001oc-QB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:36:40 +0000
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u22NYgDp025224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:34:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <56D74C23.5010705@isi.edu> <56D76A7E.7090507@isi.edu> <20160302232125.GA18275@1wt.eu>
Cc: touch@isi.edu, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56D77892.2000308@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:34:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160302232125.GA18275@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.9.64.64; envelope-from=touch@isi.edu; helo=vapor.isi.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.250, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1abGJq-0001oc-QB b417b0549b6ec238ccb6e3fa47141a83
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56D77892.2000308@isi.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31158
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>


On 3/2/2016 3:21 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:34:38PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>> - it has significant errors
>>
>> 	TIME-WAIT issues apply to servers, not clients.
> 
> Sorry but no it's the opposite. 

TIME-WAIT is a state caused by the side that closes the connection.

In the bulk of HTTP connections, the server closes the connection,
either to drop a persistent connection or to indicate "EOF" for a transfer.

Clients generally don't enter TIME-WAIT, so reducing the time they spend
in a state they don't enter has no effect.

> A server has no issue with knowing that
> a SYN belongs to a new session by seeing its ISN greater than the end
> of the previous window. 

That's exactly the reason the server keeps information in the TIME-WAIT
state.

> On the opposite, a client cannot know if the
> remote server it wants to connect to is safe for reuse 

TIME-WAIT isn't just for new connections; it's to protect against
injecting traffic from previous connections that is delayed into new
connections...

> and will refrain
> from establishing a new connection during the whole TIME_WAIT state,
> effectively preventing itself from doing its job.

If that's what it doesn, that's not TIME-WAIT - it's some new state in
the OS to avoid the possibility of hitting a TIME-WAIT at the server.
That's mislabeled at best, and defeats the entire purpose of the
TIME-WAIT at the server anyway.

Joe