On 08/20/2010 02:13 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> fre 2010-08-20 klockan 13:00 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov:
>> On 08/20/2010 09:26 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>>> See RFC on use and meaning of HTTP version numbers.
>>
>> The only relevant RFC text I can find is an informal discussion that
>> HTTP version is tied to a "message sender", an undefined concept.
>> However, even if we replace "message sender" with "client or server", my
>> assertion that HTTP does not guarantee that one host:port corresponds to
>> one "client or server" appears to be valid.
> RFC 2616 3.2.2 http URL
>
> The semantics are that the identified resource is located at
> the server listening for TCP connections on that port of that host
Yes, the above quote answers my question.
Thank you,
Alex.
> Remember that use of NAT, TCP/IP load balancers etc is pretty much
> outside all normal TCP/IP specifications. IP derived specifications
> assumes end-to-end semantics at IP level unless otherwise explicitly
> stated, where relevant.
>
> Or put in other words, if you use NAT or TCP/IP load balancing or
> similar techniques making several different servers answer on the same
> ip:port then it's your responsibility to make sure your server as a
> whole acts in a coherent manner. As far as specifications is concerned
> it's still a single server, even if it internally splits the load across
> several physically distinct servers. Many implementations gets bitten by
> this at various levels, most notably for the HTTP specifications is
> ETag, Content-Location and Location mismatches. HTTP version is in this
> same category.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
Received on Fri Aug 20 2010 - 20:16:10 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Aug 21 2010 - 12:00:04 MDT