5 ms·

Google SPDY Protocol Would Require Mass Change in Infrastructure

13 points by lmacvittie 17y ago

AndrewDucker 17y ago
I have to agree - it does seem likely that the chances from SPDY will find themselves rolled into later versions of HTTP rather than an entirely new protocol being used.
- wmf 17y ago
  This is just a matter of terminology. If "HTTP 2.0" is radically different on the wire from 1.1 then it is both a later version of HTTP and an entirely new protocol.
pilif 17y ago
while I agree and I really don't see that there's any chance of any disruptive change happening to the web, it's also saying a lot that this article is posted on the website of a company that sells HTTP load balancers. You see? Either SPDY is quick enough to not require them any more (unlikely) or (more likely) they are not interested in the huge development ahead of them should SPDY pick up (which it won't).
- TFrancis 17y ago
  Right. It's almost as if F5 forgot that the infrastructure isn't a means to it's own end for application owners.
radu_floricica 17y ago
I may not be very knowledgeable in this area, but my first instinct is I don't very much like the kind of infrastructure that needs to peek into my HTTP headers. Anyways, google is in a unique position with this kind of changes. It has a >1% browser, and a hefty slice of web servers (only google and youtube and it adds up to something impressive). So this kind of protocol is worth pushing only to give chrome users on google sites an edge. The rest of the sites/browsers have a good chance of following, but they're not essential to declare the protocol a success.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's pretty close to 'embrace and extend'.
  - teilo 17y ago
    No, it's not. Embrace and extend is designed to take over a market entirely and push out the competition. Example: ActiveX only works in IE, and the code is closed so no one else can implement it. Here is what Google seems to be doing: Inventing a new, more efficient HTTP, supporting it on their servers and browsers, and opening the spec to anyone who chooses to implement it, while, at the same time, continuing to support the venerable HTTP protocol in all its apps, with no loss in functionality. Apache, Firefox, Safari, and [gasp] IE could freely implement SPDY at any time, or not. In this manner the market gets to determine which protocol should succeed, and it determines it in a way that does not harm the consumer or limit his choices. Show me another company with the ability or the will to do something this comprehensively helpful.
- easp 17y ago
  I think the strategy google is pursuing with Chrome, ChromeOS, SPDY and even google docs is to make web-centric computing more widespread, both among the established base of existing desktop and laptop users, and among non-users like people in developing countries, and people who aren't doing mobile computing yet. Google benefits both because they are well positioned to monetize this type of computing, through both advertising, and fees for services like Google Apps; and because this kind of computing devalues the cash cows of their largest rival. The tactics they are using are to drive down costs (ie give Google Apps away to small businesses, and make it a lot cheaper than running exchange, deploying office, etc, for larger orgs), and to enhance the overall experience (ie make web apps faster via SPDY, fast javascript, etc). Against this background, projects like Chrome don't have to achieve market dominance to be successful, they just have to achieve broad influence. I don't think just delivering better performance when Chrome users visit Google's properties counts as success, though; I think they need to get other browsers and services to change too. I think SPDY is most likely to take off on mobile devices first. First, latency is a much bigger issue for cellular data than it is for WiFi, etc. Second, it looks like Google is going to get decent browser share on mobile devices. If Google implements SPDY in the Android browser, then makers of mobile web apps will likely embrace it. If that happens, then Apple, etc will feel the need to support it as well, lest the iPhone end up at a big disadvantage.
jacquesm 17y ago
SPDY has a few good ideas, one that can be implemented fairly easily is http header compression, it wouldn't be very hard to make that change in a backwards compatible fashion. Most of the rest of the changes remind me of IPV4 vs IPV6, if it is that much better how come we're stuck in IPV4 land ? Installed base is a fantastic way to limit your freedom to make changes, if SPDY is going to require both server and client (and proxy) modifications in order to function and is not backwards compatible then I don't give it much chance of being implemented. It's nice to see people thinking about these issues though.
- briansmith 17y ago
  HTTP header compression is already available in HTTPS with TLS. You can compress the headers and the data as one GZIP stream. You can even use the content of a previous response to further compress a subsquent response. (In other words, HTTP-level compression is like a ZIP file, where each document is compressed individually, whereas TLS-level compression can be made to work like a tar.gz, where all documents are compressed as a single stream, maximizing sharing.) For maximum efficiency, you need HTTP keepalive (but that is true even without using TLS compression). Firefox just recently added support for this. Apache has had support for it for a while, depending on how your OpenSSL is configured. If browsers and web servers implemented the combination of NULL encryption cipher + NULL authentication code, then you could use TLS just for compression, without having to pay the cost of cryptographic operations. However, browser makes don't want to do this because they are afraid that users think "https://.. https://... means secure" when "https://.. https://... just means TLS+http, which may or may not have useful security properties. Also, server admins usually don't want to enable long-lived connections because Apache's default way of handling them is stupid. They don't know that load balancers, servers like nginx, and other configurations of Apache do not have the same problems. This is made worse by the fact that all the advice on the internet states that keepalive is bad.
- jerf 17y ago
  Virtually by definition, all speed improvements possible with the current protocols have been made (since there's a ton of people who care), and therefore, all remaining speed improvements will require new protocols. It's only a matter of scale; HTTP pipelining required new protocol extensions, after all. There's no way to significantly improve the system without changes that require changes to servers, clients, and proxies.

13 points by lmacvittie 17y ago

I have to agree - it does seem likely that the chances from SPDY will find themselves rolled into later versions of HTTP rather than an entirely new protocol being used.

wmf 17y ago
This is just a matter of terminology. If "HTTP 2.0" is radically different on the wire from 1.1 then it is both a later version of HTTP and an entirely new protocol.

pilif 17y ago

while I agree and I really don't see that there's any chance of any disruptive change happening to the web, it's also saying a lot that this article is posted on the website of a company that sells HTTP load balancers. You see? Either SPDY is quick enough to not require them any more (unlikely) or (more likely) they are not interested in the huge development ahead of them should SPDY pick up (which it won't).

TFrancis 17y ago
Right. It's almost as if F5 forgot that the infrastructure isn't a means to it's own end for application owners.

radu_floricica 17y ago

I may not be very knowledgeable in this area, but my first instinct is I don't very much like the kind of infrastructure that needs to peek into my HTTP headers. Anyways, google is in a unique position with this kind of changes. It has a >1% browser, and a hefty slice of web servers (only google and youtube and it adds up to something impressive). So this kind of protocol is worth pushing only to give chrome users on google sites an edge. The rest of the sites/browsers have a good chance of following, but they're not essential to declare the protocol a success.

jacquesm 17y ago
That's pretty close to 'embrace and extend'.
- teilo 17y ago
  No, it's not. Embrace and extend is designed to take over a market entirely and push out the competition. Example: ActiveX only works in IE, and the code is closed so no one else can implement it. Here is what Google seems to be doing: Inventing a new, more efficient HTTP, supporting it on their servers and browsers, and opening the spec to anyone who chooses to implement it, while, at the same time, continuing to support the venerable HTTP protocol in all its apps, with no loss in functionality. Apache, Firefox, Safari, and [gasp] IE could freely implement SPDY at any time, or not. In this manner the market gets to determine which protocol should succeed, and it determines it in a way that does not harm the consumer or limit his choices. Show me another company with the ability or the will to do something this comprehensively helpful.
easp 17y ago
I think the strategy google is pursuing with Chrome, ChromeOS, SPDY and even google docs is to make web-centric computing more widespread, both among the established base of existing desktop and laptop users, and among non-users like people in developing countries, and people who aren't doing mobile computing yet. Google benefits both because they are well positioned to monetize this type of computing, through both advertising, and fees for services like Google Apps; and because this kind of computing devalues the cash cows of their largest rival. The tactics they are using are to drive down costs (ie give Google Apps away to small businesses, and make it a lot cheaper than running exchange, deploying office, etc, for larger orgs), and to enhance the overall experience (ie make web apps faster via SPDY, fast javascript, etc). Against this background, projects like Chrome don't have to achieve market dominance to be successful, they just have to achieve broad influence. I don't think just delivering better performance when Chrome users visit Google's properties counts as success, though; I think they need to get other browsers and services to change too. I think SPDY is most likely to take off on mobile devices first. First, latency is a much bigger issue for cellular data than it is for WiFi, etc. Second, it looks like Google is going to get decent browser share on mobile devices. If Google implements SPDY in the Android browser, then makers of mobile web apps will likely embrace it. If that happens, then Apple, etc will feel the need to support it as well, lest the iPhone end up at a big disadvantage.

jacquesm 17y ago

SPDY has a few good ideas, one that can be implemented fairly easily is http header compression, it wouldn't be very hard to make that change in a backwards compatible fashion. Most of the rest of the changes remind me of IPV4 vs IPV6, if it is that much better how come we're stuck in IPV4 land ? Installed base is a fantastic way to limit your freedom to make changes, if SPDY is going to require both server and client (and proxy) modifications in order to function and is not backwards compatible then I don't give it much chance of being implemented. It's nice to see people thinking about these issues though.

briansmith 17y ago
HTTP header compression is already available in HTTPS with TLS. You can compress the headers and the data as one GZIP stream. You can even use the content of a previous response to further compress a subsquent response. (In other words, HTTP-level compression is like a ZIP file, where each document is compressed individually, whereas TLS-level compression can be made to work like a tar.gz, where all documents are compressed as a single stream, maximizing sharing.) For maximum efficiency, you need HTTP keepalive (but that is true even without using TLS compression). Firefox just recently added support for this. Apache has had support for it for a while, depending on how your OpenSSL is configured. If browsers and web servers implemented the combination of NULL encryption cipher + NULL authentication code, then you could use TLS just for compression, without having to pay the cost of cryptographic operations. However, browser makes don't want to do this because they are afraid that users think "https://.. https://... means secure" when "https://.. https://... just means TLS+http, which may or may not have useful security properties. Also, server admins usually don't want to enable long-lived connections because Apache's default way of handling them is stupid. They don't know that load balancers, servers like nginx, and other configurations of Apache do not have the same problems. This is made worse by the fact that all the advice on the internet states that keepalive is bad.
jerf 17y ago
Virtually by definition, all speed improvements possible with the current protocols have been made (since there's a ton of people who care), and therefore, all remaining speed improvements will require new protocols. It's only a matter of scale; HTTP pipelining required new protocol extensions, after all. There's no way to significantly improve the system without changes that require changes to servers, clients, and proxies.