On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 6:49 AM James Roper <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't understand why people say gRPC doesn't work over HTTP/1.1. Take a look at an old response of mine on this list: https://groups.google.com/g/grpc-io/c/Jk6-E3Ezb2g/m/mhimOU7RHksJ . You are correct that the gRPC protocol only needs HTTP/1.1 semantics. The upshot of all this is you should never do gRPC over HTTP/1.1 over > networks and with client, server and proxy implementations that you are not > in complete control of, such as over Internet. But for internal > communication in data centres, where you control your exact network > topology, and you control the client, server and any proxy server that may > be in the communication path, there's no reason why gRPC can't work over > HTTP/1.1. So, why say it doesn't? > If you have such control over the environment, why use HTTP/1.1 instead of HTTP/2? It is essentially the "same" work to make sure HTTP/2 works as it is to make sure HTTP/1.1 works. It is definitely true that our gRPC implementations don't support HTTP/1.1, so it literally doesn't work. If you have some reason you want HTTP/1.1, then you probably also have one of those implementation limitations that prevents it from working well. I'll note also that we generally design for encrypted connections (TLS); that makes HTTP/1.1 much more expensive. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CA%2B4M1oPCsDYhqMDHJOanrRyH4PfEuSvN8v%2Bg54aSax34OehVvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
