4 ms·
I'd hope that anyone speaking SPDY would also be SNI-capable, thus negating the usual need for one IP+port per certificate. Granted, it does nothing for your o
by rachelbythebay 14y ago
I'd hope that anyone speaking SPDY would also be SNI-capable, thus negating the usual need for one IP+port per certificate.
Granted, it does nothing for your older non-SNI browsers, but they won't be speaking SPDY or HTTP/2.0 or whatever it winds up being called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
- arunoda 14y agoYes you are so correct. SPDY is for the future. Getting a SSL certificate is not a big issue and not too costly. And for blogs and simple websites SPDY adds less. So don't implemmnt it. So why anyone needs to worry?
- cbr 14y agoOn spdy-dev they considered adding SNI to the spec as a requirement but didn't: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/spdy-dev/KQoAEzhuTAE https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/spdy-dev/... (At this point implementing SPDY without SNI would be kind of absurd, but it would be spec-conforming.)
- notatoad 14y agoAndroid browser supports SPDY but doesn't support SNI.
- agl 14y agoVersions of Android that support SPDY also support SNI.