Tunneling SSL through a SPDY Proxy does add extra overhead. In many circumstance, you are right, this overhead does not provide any additional benefits. In such circumstance, it would make the most sense to use such a SPDY Proxy only for HTTP urls (for example with a proxy.pac that sends HTTPS URLs direct). However there are also scenarios when tunneling SSL through a SPDY Proxy makes sense. One simple case is using a SPDY Proxy as a "web VPN". Such a proxy would know how to connect to hosts which do not have hostnames that resolve publicly. This would allow users to send both HTTP and HTTPS traffic through the proxy for hostnames that they are unable to reach directly. This would allow a SPDY Proxy enabled browser to be a VPN client.
Regarding the http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy - what is the
reasoning behind tunneling SSL through SPDY? It looks like an
additional overhead without any added benefits. Should several SSL
streams be tunnelled through one SPDY session?
And regarding putting such a proxy before your website - I think that
the current chrome doesn't yet support Alternate-Protocol: XXX:spdy/2
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mike Belshe <mbe...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:25 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <will...@chromium.org>
>> [ +rch ]
>> Yes, Ryan is working on this.
> To expand on this a bit - yes - efforts are underway. I'm not sure if that
> will be a public tool. One of these days, if nobody else gets to it, I'm
> going to hack on the in-mem-server to turn it into a proxy and put it in
> front of belshe.com :-)
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Lars Eggert <lars....@nokia.com>
>>> wondering what the status of http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-proxy is?
>>> A continuation of the work we've been doing with Binoy would benefit if a
>>> SPDY proxy were available. Is anyone working on this?