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

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I don't think that's the relevant aspect here. "Another port" could be port 80 or port 443 (nasty, and you wouldn't make it the default, but I think you see where I'm going). 
> 
> The question is why it's necessary to run both HTTP and WebSockets traffic over the *same* port simultaneously -- something that AFAICT is taken as axiomatic, and I'm really wondering why.

Web developers will likely want to operate both a WebSocket service and an HTTP service on the same server, since WebSocket services are likely to be most useful in combination with a Web application that makes use of them. At the same time, they will want their WebSocket traffic to go through firewalls properly. It would be a significant burden if a WebSocket service required a separate domain name, physical or virtual server, and possibly SSL cert.

Thus desire to have a single piece of server software that can dispatch connects to HTTP applications or Web applications as appropriate.

Regards,
Maciej

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 26/11/2010, at 11:55 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> 
>> The problem with another port, is that the success rate of  opening an
>> arbitrary port through firewalls is not that high.     Thus if
>> websocket was allocated it's own sockets, then there would still be
>> need for a websocket over 80 protocol (eg like there is BOSH for
>> XMPP).
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi