Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1384821F9673 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 hl5Z8xca9LBa for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F4C21F9021 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp18so2797914obc.7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pAL1c8grR94qbXnhDx2iec+AverY8DdTuFGpQg8rRyo=; b=xMXGK5f/+V60FGJ4CaLTjfoxi1zlMyQ8YNuQzYWy1Deq5KaM688HsKwC1ByBKUZIE7 0PgGmowyfmbjz18FlXg2X4E3JqZBHbcaQOdwT6+Qr3OgtmS7saUq8fmtM9dOBemKayAP GokQUQXR32gVMa7HIkpdSJikWX9j2EFRCcgcYBfHaWtkY7oYqpCyDYfJ4d1N/XJGzwQ6 S812H6H7ZxknRVYQgOBImNBQXqp0G6ziOGFuoE9fHqVQe0d8fr8samVeD19wFPrCK+YW mfntrDJuYe3EIyZaQv0HZrnuJuPAry+dbUql4XRD6G+zQU1CykVOSYSaTD8AFAfWX03v XMWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.79.165 with SMTP id k5mr5820671oex.108.1369249209939; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.98.227 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAM5k6X8Z-JxrgTy3NAc-wC7zK_AfsWAhqzNKaEY_yZzmz=pZcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9hSJZxr+aG7GZa4f-dUOTGj4bnJ+3XxivUX4jei5CMyqN4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZUG1f+3Uk=t2=A5i4O9=wPvAisspM=pgmGEH9emTL9-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZai_UuxW4O6mZcEJT2DJoURtLo16XNci1qkYVWv4HVdg@mail.gmail.com> <007501ce56f0$67f74080$37e5c180$@noemax.com> <519CD6A1.7080708@ericsson.com> <519CE075.4000106@tavendo.de> <CAM5k6X9WmO80hiQZ6_GqK66PAd3of=2ZRi9=VrWj52apA1+=5g@mail.gmail.com> <519D02E7.6040009@tavendo.de> <CAM5k6X8Z-JxrgTy3NAc-wC7zK_AfsWAhqzNKaEY_yZzmz=pZcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:00:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqHYmF+-zECFrGsHqt0i91jHAzk9Az72=tva_kn=ra2pKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: "John A. Tamplin" <jat@jaet.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012281b6c47fc704dd532c93
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:00:19 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM, John A. Tamplin <jat@jaet.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Tobias Oberstein <
> tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de> wrote:
>
>> Regarding implementing flow control above TCP (and below app), I found
>> this:
>>
>> "Multiplexing on top of TCP in overall fails to deliver the advantages it
>> is assumed to provide."
>>
>> Source: http://www.250bpm.com/**multiplexing<http://www.250bpm.com/multiplexing>
>>
>> Do you have an opinion on that?
>>
>
> One thing he doesn't address are resources used to keep lots of
> connections open, both at the OS level and in intermediate network nodes
> (such as load balancers -- try running tons of long-lived connections
> through an F5 for example).  Also, he doesn't address the interaction of
> TCP slow start with lots of new connections.  I also don't believe the
> equivalent of a full TCP handshake is required to allocate buffer space.
>
>
>> More important: what problem exactly does multiplexing solve? The current
>> mux RFC mentions "scalability", but doesn't go into detail ..
>>
>
> Here is a use-case I envision:  Imagine GMail, G+ sandbar, etc all use
> WebSockets heavily.  Many users may have multiple copies of such apps
> running in tabs or windows in the browser, and some of these are going to
> be separate (such as GMail and the G+ sandbar probably are separate apps
> running on the same page and maintain their own connections to their
> backends).  Currently, that would mean you have a ton of TCP connections
> open to the server.
>


> Servers don't handle tons of long-lived connections very well
>

Is that still true today? Recent server implementations all boast they can
handle tons of connections.



> (or intermediate load balancers), so you would greatly prefer to have one
> connection per browser.  WS MUX lets you do that, by having the browser
> aggregate connections to the same backend.  You could do some of it at the
> app level, but it is going to be complicated and in many cases these apps
> won't all be from the same vendor (for example, some widget on the page
> that uses the GData API) and will have separate deploy schedules.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>