Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 07/12/2010, at 5:10 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> In my opinion the problem is not here, but the adoption rate depending
> on the port. Many organisations implement URL filtering on port 80,
> white-list based filtering on 443 and nothing else around. If you want
> to deploy a site which quickly gets a lot of traffic, port 80 clearly
> is the most suited, which is even more true considering that long polling
> mechanisms already work over that port.

Quantify 'many.' According to Adam's paper, ~13% of clients will fail to negotiate with a CONNECT-based solution. Is "many" > 13% of the Internet?


> Also, being able to switch from HTTP to WS over a same socket for some
> services can save one round trip, but that's marginal in most situations,
> except from mobile phones.


Would they negotiate back to HTTP if they need to fetch an image? 



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