Hi,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:54:10PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> 2017-10-15 23:43 GMT+05:00 Willy Tarreau :
>
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 07:16:51PM +0100, Aaron West wrote:
> > > Hi Willy,
> > >
> > > Sorry to bother you, just a quick question if I may.
> > >
> > > Does support for QUIC imply
Hi all,
Aleksandar Lazic wrote on 16.10.2017:
[snipp]
> I have also started to create a image based on the h2 branch
> https://gitlab.com/aleks001/haproxy18-centos
> It's not finished yet but when it's finished you can use the docker
> image then from docker hub.
> https://hub.docker.com/u/m
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:07:17PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
> On 2017-10-16 14:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:28:12PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> > > I guess following step-by-step approach, 1st client side, it makes
> > > sense as
> > > it reduces the size of breakag
On 2017-10-16 14:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:28:12PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
I guess following step-by-step approach, 1st client side, it makes
sense as
it reduces the size of breakage:-)
Yes but not only this. It's also the fact that the main benefits of H2
are
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:28:12PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> I guess following step-by-step approach, 1st client side, it makes sense as
> it reduces the size of breakage:-)
Yes but not only this. It's also the fact that the main benefits of H2 are
on the client side, where the latency is th
On 16/10/2017 11:27 πμ, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Pavlos!
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:46:44AM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>>> Now after several failed attempts and with a lot of design sessions
>>> with my coworkers, I've made a good progress on a totally different
>>> approach which will lat
Hi Willy,
Willy Tarreau wrote on 16.10.2017:
> Hi Pavlos!
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:46:44AM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>> > Now after several failed attempts and with a lot of design sessions
>> > with my coworkers, I've made a good progress on a totally different
>> > approach which will
Hi Pavlos!
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:46:44AM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> > Now after several failed attempts and with a lot of design sessions
> > with my coworkers, I've made a good progress on a totally different
> > approach which will later allow us to implement HTTP/2 on both sides,
> >
On 15/10/2017 07:02 μμ, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Sander,
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I haven't been paying much attention to the list lately, but I am wondering
>> what the current status of http/2 support is in 1.8-(dev|snapshot).
>>
>> Is it in
Hi Willy,
On 2017-10-15 19:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
If everything goes well, the final rebased and cleaned up code should
be available for a release candidate by the end of the month.
Great, I will wait and see what you have available at the end of the
month. I'm in no hurry, I just wanted to
; Willy Tarreau; HAProxy
Subject: Re: Experimental / broken HTTP/2 support
PCoIP comes to mind but blast seems to have replaced the need.
Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/>
From: Aaron West
Sent: Oct 15, 2017 3:11 PM
To: Willy Tarreau; HAProxy
Subje
PCoIP comes to mind but blast seems to have replaced the need.
Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/>
From: Aaron West
Sent: Oct 15, 2017 3:11 PM
To: Willy Tarreau; HAProxy
Subject: Re: Experimental / broken HTTP/2 support
Yes! RDP 8.0+ can use UDP traff
Yes! RDP 8.0+ can use UDP traffic for a better connection, that's what
I was thinking when I asked.
Aaron West
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
www.loadbalancer.org
+1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
aa...@loadbalancer.org
LEAVE A REVIEW | DEPLOYMENT GUIDES | BLOG
2017-10-15 23:43 GMT+05:00 Willy Tarreau :
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 07:16:51PM +0100, Aaron West wrote:
> > Hi Willy,
> >
> > Sorry to bother you, just a quick question if I may.
> >
> > Does support for QUIC imply we'd have rudimentary UDP support as well
> > or is it only going to support QUIC
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 07:16:51PM +0100, Aaron West wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Sorry to bother you, just a quick question if I may.
>
> Does support for QUIC imply we'd have rudimentary UDP support as well
> or is it only going to support QUIC Protocol?
It will be UDP for QUIC only.
Do you have a
Hi Willy,
Sorry to bother you, just a quick question if I may.
Does support for QUIC imply we'd have rudimentary UDP support as well
or is it only going to support QUIC Protocol?
Aaron West
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
www.loadbalancer.org
+1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
aa...@loadbalancer.org
Hi Sander,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't been paying much attention to the list lately, but I am wondering
> what the current status of http/2 support is in 1.8-(dev|snapshot).
>
> Is it in a usable-but-needs testing state? Or more like
> stay-
Hi,
I haven't been paying much attention to the list lately, but I am
wondering what the current status of http/2 support is in
1.8-(dev|snapshot).
Is it in a usable-but-needs testing state? Or more like
stay-away-because-it-kills-kittens state?
Greets,
Sander
On 2017-08-18 16:49, Willy
;
> -Original Message-
> From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w...@1wt.eu]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 9:49 AM
> To: haproxy@formilux.org
> Subject: Experimental / broken HTTP/2 support
>
> ...well, I think everything is in the subject :-)
>
> Hi, by the way!
>
Hi Willy,
Willy Tarreau wrote on 18.08.2017:
> ...well, I think everything is in the subject :-)
> Hi, by the way!
> I'm able to gateway http/2 traffic to www.haproxy.org and am getting logs
> to prove it :
That's great ;-)
><134>Aug 18 15:56:51 haproxy[6566]: 127.0.0.1:43740
> [18/Aug/20
ml
-Original Message-
From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w...@1wt.eu]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 9:49 AM
To: haproxy@formilux.org
Subject: Experimental / broken HTTP/2 support
...well, I think everything is in the subject :-)
Hi, by the way!
I'm able to gateway http/2 traffic to www.hap
...well, I think everything is in the subject :-)
Hi, by the way!
I'm able to gateway http/2 traffic to www.haproxy.org and am getting logs
to prove it :
<134>Aug 18 15:56:51 haproxy[6566]: 127.0.0.1:43740
[18/Aug/2017:15:56:51.282] www~ www/ -1/13/0/-1/18 0 15 - -
1/1/0/0/0 0/0 http=1
22 matches
Mail list logo
