From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan 29 09:09:51 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA14224
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chrome.jdl.com (chrome.onramp.net [199.1.166.202])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA14218
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chrome.jdl.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02227; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:06:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199601291706.LAA02227@chrome.jdl.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: chrome.jdl.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Why RFC1323 is disabled on freefall and freebsd.cdrom.com ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:11:06 +0100."
             <199601291411.PAA05532@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> 
Clarity-Index: null
Threat-Level: none
Software-Engineering-Dead-Seriousness: There's no excuse for unreadable code.
Net-thought: If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your Kill file.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:06:03 -0600
From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

[ RFC 1323 TCP/IP VJ extensions... ]

Apparently, Luigi Rizzo scribbled:
> I don't question your word. I just want to point out that people
> at unix.hensa.ac.uk (and wwwcache.hensa.ac.uk, a national web proxy)
> say that they serve over 1 million web documents per day, so they
> might have scalability and interoperability problems similar to
> yours.
> 
> Two differences, perhaps:
> * www documents are often smaller than ftp, and just one per
>   connection, so it's hard to make a comparison of the traffic;
> 
> * they mostly serve UK clients, so they might have a different view of
>   the world (read: thei might not have to deal with the same
>   brokenesses).

wcarchive is currently one machine, serving both www and
ftp requests, right?  A classic approach to solving the
problem of making forward progress yet maintaining backward
compatibility for a while is to offer dual services.

What are the chances of "splitting" wcarchive, for example,
into two machines maybe along the www/ftp line and making
one of them RFC 1323 aware while keeping the other unaware.
Those who are willing/able to move into the future can do so.

Certainly, it will be some degree of trouble and cause some
headaches with the dual maintenance issues, but it might help
to shed light on the general issue too.

Anyway, just a thought.

jdl