IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Frame size

Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> Mon, 19 April 2010 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jamie@shareable.org>
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 A2FD33A6A33 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.423, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9fB8eKYiulgR for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB963A68CC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1O3pEb-0000BG-1n; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:33:49 +0100
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:33:49 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Message-ID: <20100419113349.GF28758@shareable.org>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E3F313ED@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <v2m5c902b9e1004160043i7b5ccc79y2346e1b2b2c55cf5@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7D06790@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <20100419005215.GD18876@shareable.org> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7D067BC@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <20100419020127.GH18876@shareable.org> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7D067ED@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7D067ED@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Frame size
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, 19 Apr 2010 11:34:02 -0000

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> You make a good case... for SCTP :p

Yes, absolutely!

SCTP would be a much better match for the problem.

Meanwhile, we have to work over TCP.

Remember that Google's tests show you can only communicate from many
client sites over:

   - TCP port 80, using HTTP
   - TCP port 443, using CONNECT
   - No other TCP ports.
   - (Not shown in that test, but) no other IP protocols

It would be great to use SCTP when possible, but the basic protocol
has to use TCP if it's to support Web Applications over the Web Using Internet.

If you have a proposal for opportunistically upgrading to SCTP, that
would be great.

Perhaps if my ideas for proxies get taken seriously, we can put the
SCTP upgrade in there, transparent to WebSocket applications :-)

-- Jamie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email