Subject: [Doh] HTTP/2 and constrained environments

From: Mateusz Jończyk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 11:40:21 +0200

Hello,
I have been thinking about the possibility of running a DOH API server on a home
router - mostly for resolution of names of local devices.

Currently, most (if not a vast majority) of home routers are capable of working
as a DNS forwarder.

One of my routers (FunBox 2.0, provided by my ISP - Orange) has a DNS server
with the capability to resolve names of local devices. As we all know, IPs of
local devices may be assigned via DHCP, so they change from time to time. To
have static names, it is possible to assign DNS names to MAC addresses so that
irrespectively of the IP address the device gets, it may be resolved by the DNS
name by the local DNS/DHCP server.

Performance in this case would not be critical, as requests would be rare.

I am not sure if this is currently supported by dnsmasq.

How difficult it would be to implement HTTP/2 on a home router with 8 MB of
flash and 32 MB of RAM? Would it at all be possible? Would it be much more
difficult to implement than HTTP/1.0? All of my routers support only HTTP/1.0 in
the management interface.

Would it be beneficial to specify that DNS API clients SHOULD support DNS API
servers that only talk HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1?

We may ask for input from dnsmasq developers.

Greetings,
Mateusz Jończyk

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 17:13:23 -0400

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Mateusz Jończyk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> flash and 32 MB of RAM? Would it at all be possible?

no problem really. HTTP/2 provides a number of mechanisms for either peer
to scale things down (e.g.reducing state in the compression dictionary,
limiting the number of outstanding streams , small flow control windows,
etc ).

searching for nginx and dd-wrt yields lots of howto's
https://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=312701&sid=dfc6638ad8a57c7d3540d4b3aae828d3
.. nginx has http/2 support.

> Would it be much more
I'm just speculating, but I suspect that has more to do with https and the
challenges of provisioning certs on that kind of device than anything else.

> servers that only talk HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1?
imo we shouldn't be explicitly encouraging older protocols.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 08:40:56 +1000

See also https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-h2ot-00
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:13 AM Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>

>> Would it be much more
>> difficult to implement than HTTP/1.0? All of my routers support only
HTTP/1..0 in

> I'm just speculating, but I suspect that has more to do with https and
the challenges of provisioning certs on that kind of device than anything
else.

> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh