IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Intermediaries (was: CML)

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Mon, 23 August 2010 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE4D3A6877 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.583, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1B691Ajy5GMd for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B6B3A67A5 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7NETAP7019302 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:29:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1282573750; bh=6v/5fqWyKOJL94A+PvzMSMRormM=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=UZYC6LzqU8F/Jr0pwGV5S6G9g4xqSuGvWG091Rx1UjQTVvqn92QsKe6Zy3H8w529T Gq7fncafS1zA05OUD1D9A==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=PM2QI+NOTX6RAK/M2dL5atSHXtjhJGC/rYo9zQFrQqOeUfJDU+LqW5R0e7C59Tgc2 hhAcRUl6FXypvWvCwCU4w==
Received: from yxn35 (yxn35.prod.google.com [10.190.4.99]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7NET8bW011570 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:29:08 -0700
Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so2858108yxn.37 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.4.8 with SMTP id g8mr5144448ybi.365.1282573748112; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.103.4 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikobG9BEv4Jx8xgak=1PqKSr-UEzjcV3rJXVsmD@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EF2669F2@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <AANLkTi=G-gZ1+7uoYE=fhiKFUXoziWacx5_k-HfxC-0z@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EF266A07@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <AANLkTimTBLvHXTGciDM4ef1hNXPHn7cjR-kxbd8pBq3+@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EF266A27@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <AANLkTik+ayksyTdspXRfwZQ-dUeqxsut7PR10r4uo7AM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin9CMobfnDDZzZ=1QFLh1cDN8Rb8tp5vrxJ7if2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikobG9BEv4Jx8xgak=1PqKSr-UEzjcV3rJXVsmD@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:28:48 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbUyCb6Lc-bTMNB_H-7cB1A-pp1vfOQwT45cwb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian <theturtle32@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd299daa791ab048e7e784d"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Intermediaries (was: CML)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:28:39 -0000

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Brian <theturtle32@gmail.com> wrote:

> In my infrastructure that I'm working on building, I'm using HAProxy with
> layer-7 inspection specifically to forward requests for different paths to
> different physical servers.  I specifically -don't- want multiple paths at
> the same hostname to be muxed on the same connection.  If you want two
> different endpoints, open two distinct TCP connections and be done with it.
>  If you want a single stream, design your server and subprotocol to
> specifically handle all the use cases.
>

Why wouldn't you want your proxy to receive multiplexed connections from the
clients to reduce load, and then you can split them out to the other side
how you like?  Plus, if you don't want multiplexing, simple have your proxy
fail to negotiate it.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email