3 ms·
I agree, and I and many others raised it repeatedly with the HTTP2 editors/mailing list in particular, who sadly murdered that proposal because they believe in
by inopinatus 7y ago
I agree, and I and many others raised it repeatedly with the HTTP2 editors/mailing list in particular, who sadly murdered that proposal because they believe in their god-given right to squat the A record for their protocol. I believe the failure to address DNS considerations in the HTTP standard has driven a large part of ongoing IPv4 exhaustion.
- zonidjan 7y agoWhile I agree that HTTP (and everything else) should support SRV records, they wouldn't do anything for IPv4 exhaustion.
- inopinatus 7y agoI beg to differ. Having run LIRs and with friends at RIRs I know for certain that many large IPv4 allocation requests were justified on the basis of needing separate addresses for websites. Policy may be tighter now than it’s ever been, but the lack of aggregation due to well-known-port fixation drove and continues to drive unnecessary assignments.
- swinglock 7y agoShouldn't the HTTP 1.1 Host header invalidate that argument?
- inopinatus 7y agoMany people expected as much, but in practice not nearly to the extent that was desired, partly because SSL was a problem until SNI came along (and that far too late) and also because it comes after the TCP handshake, which precludes a whole class of traffic routing and service options. Fine for low-end shared hosting, not fine for many other applications.