Is round-trip time no longer a concern? (was: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User ...)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Folks,

Eric said:
> 1. It is slower because it requires two handshakes.
> 2. The client may have to authenticate twice (this is a special
>    case of (1)).
>
> The second case can be easily ameliorated by having the client send an
> extension (empty UME?) in the first handshake as a signal that it wants
> to do UMDL and that the server should hold off on demanding client
> authentication until the rehandshake happens.
>
> The performance issue is quite modest with modern servers.  Indeed, it's
> quite common for web servers to do a first handshake without cert-based
> client auth and then rehandshake with client auth if the client asks for
> a sensitive page.


This raised a flag with me. Within the Internet protocol context I have always seen significant concern for reducing the number of exchanges, because additional exchanges (hand-shakes) can -- and often do -- have painful round-trip latencies. (Server capacity can be a concern, of course, but not for this issue.)

For all of the massive improvements in the Internet's infrastructure, my impression is that round-trip delays can still be problematic.

To this end, the high chatter rate of http seems less a basis for encouraging other protocols to chatter more, than a case of remarkable good luck... unless you happen to be on a path that has high latencies frequently, or experience too many of these extra handshakes.

Is it true that we no longer need to worry about regularly adding extra round-trips to popular protocols that operate over the open Internet?

d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]