Re: [hybi] [whatwg] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

There was a fairly long thread initiated by Ian on squid-dev, FYI:
  http://marc.info/?t=124700786100001&r=1&w=2

That discussion is very similar to this one.

Cheers,



On 19/12/2009, at 12:11 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Given WebSocket's stated goals (on this list) of:
>> 
>>   - Not working through HTTP proxies, including intercepting proxies.
>>   - Not being HTTP compatible.
>>   - Not being correctly parsable by a correct HTTP request parser.
>> 
>> I'm thinking it would be easier to just use port 81 and be done with it.
> 
> Proxies (mainly reverse proxies) and caching are incredibly important
> to any real scalability efforts.  I'm not aware of many high-traffic
> web setups that don't rely upon massive amounts of front-ends.  So,
> any port 80 traffic to any big sites is very likely to hit an hardware
> box (F5, etc.) or a software balancer (a la mod_proxy or varnish or
> squid).  If the current WebSockets ID is intended to *fail* in those
> situations, the deployment story is likely to be a real non-starter...
> 
> I'm curious what the makeup of this hybi@ list/WG is - how many server
> or intermediary devs are on this?  From browsing the archives, it
> looks like it is mostly browser/user-agent developers so far.  --
> justin
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/