Re: Redirection to Other IP Addresses

Bin Ni <> Sun, 28 July 2019 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC421200E7 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.65
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_VISITOURSITE=2, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2b2C5J-6hdE for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7B771200E6 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hretB-0000ui-3p for; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 08:50:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 08:50:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hret8-0000tw-Sq for; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 08:50:42 +0000
Received: from ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hret6-0004tE-69 for; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 08:50:42 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id j26so38843383vsn.10 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JwgOsRmrhTgRPFMlGjpyHgS+IDYfh/SriWpIY0F/cQU=; b=woH6Sh8MPXspwDa5KJmtsYPV235kmXAjAqvuaNnWGB944okuWwzB8pv33zhuqUTJly 7ePv9JhtAZeIJOZt32+nb+vcscJLyTCBhy4Efr/yCoV16IPktJgPsxBR5Qne3Tybi6xt UL7oh+rBTAWYyL7vdT/zHSECH5hs+NpuScWOwxFPqSHyau+jpSit9LKpGBwLTQBiJWya 87+ZXIrzKk0Jf9LqCm0PenqLcQeluSCkIUi3BjOGvTHGiN5oCGGdSqvNIP+HAuoLE15y 3zwZy/argIe60le47FTso9zhDnfngfEX6mROh9xTa9u2q1Mcm2SQPOHrzEd4ZSOJ8UyG 8DWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JwgOsRmrhTgRPFMlGjpyHgS+IDYfh/SriWpIY0F/cQU=; b=c/tVNq02rWyOUuQO4sVWMeO1aEql8qj14j5f1YTINpTsMipOqJO92f687WM7fYiJ/i ILacApWHfemdcD4+aBCtiPuurf54AM6NFZEPi90Pj6wpIwEBzwNEmiOnqt9wORTiQXj3 BMMdngpi4maFEUSq0s5AKA9uQL30dmVO+/kRy0KNq4wf1J13rlceC/4vGBM8HaWl2rCL alOOGsVwFuropYOYHQh1SSTNYocf7ngHhMJv161Qrr2+Qp1rER1sGCjDNFog7G7obR6t UeN6rg5pNbQOmjL4SEzrD9jYJqNjcBCxOqhWoB29nlQmJAlWRES50zjpdHaq8IDKfRqY dvcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbQNAgIwLrFxmpTnn4A4NjY5iybNVBmLacXwoGsfF9FD5j1ff/ zEREcMTTMDN+Fx1MzBx0CMqq3B7FDYscsABlr8g+cg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9bTsn6kw8GuqAzP2vkL1ygTB91CRmeJaYkT8D26q/5rJZ9hvNb9hyBFL2QkxqK6BXLyVGkdz8HzPwjlClh3U=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e296:: with SMTP id g22mr43963441vsf.174.1564303818471; Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Bin Ni <>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:50:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
Cc: Ryan Hamilton <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006bd8f2058eb9dd55"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1hret6-0004tE-69 656422726da77764c7dc5c0d7f538fa1
Subject: Re: Redirection to Other IP Addresses
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/36855
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Got it.
I just did some tests to see how Chrome deals with 300 or 301 with
"alt-svc" header.
It seems the browser does not retry the request with the alternate server.
So it looks "Alt-Svc", at least in its current form, does not meet my
I just modified my proposal to indicate this fact.
I think another way is to extend the current "Alt-Svc": When combined with
a special status code, say, 312,
the client *should* retry the current request with the suggested alternate

What do you think?



On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 1:18 AM Julian Reschke <>

> On 28.07.2019 09:38, Bin Ni wrote:
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> > So maybe the server can returns a 301 with no "location" header but a
> > "alt-svc" header to
> > force the client to go to that alternative service?
> Again, alt-svc is just advisory.
> > ...
> Best regards, Julian


Bin Ni
VP of Engineering
[image: Quantil]

Connecting users with's that simple.

Office: +1-888-847-9851 <(888)%20847-9851>

[image: Tweeter] <>  [image: Google Plus]
<>  [image: Linked In]

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally
privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To
contact us directly, send to QUANTIL, INC. at 1919 S Bascom Ave #600,
Campbell, CA 95008
or visit our website at <>