[Onavo]

Do http/2 and http/3 offer any benefits if they are only supported by the reverse proxy but not the underlying web server? Most mainstream frameworks for JS/Python/Ruby don't support the newer http standards. Won't the web server be a bottleneck for the reverse proxied connection?

[AgentME]

Yes, because http/2 or http/3 will improve the reliability of the connection between the client and the reverse proxy. The connection between the reverse proxy and the underlying web server is usually much faster and more reliable, so that part would benefit much less from being upgraded to http/2 or http/3.

[markasoftware]

the transport between reverse proxy <-> backend is not always http, eg python w/ uwsgi and php w/ fastcgi.

And even when it is HTTP, as other commenters said, the reverse proxy is able to handshake connections to the backend much more quickly than an actual remote client would, so it's still advantageous to use http/2 streams for the slower part of the connection.

[account42]

> the transport between reverse proxy <-> backend is not always http, eg python w/ uwsgi and php w/ fastcgi.

That's just called a web server and not a reverse proxy then. Both are just evolutions of CGI.

[masspro]

Probably not, but mitmproxy is not a reverse proxy for any production purpose. It’s for running on your local machine and doing testing of either low-level protocol or web security stuff.

[codetrotter]

> mitmproxy is not a reverse proxy for any production purpose

At a startup I was working on a few years ago, I set up mitmproxy in dev and eventually if memory serves right I also sometimes enabled it in prod to debug things.

That being said, we did not have a lot of users. We had in fact very very few users at the time.

[hedora]

I’ve been patiently waiting for someone to write a howto that uses mitmproxy to transparently obtain acme certificates for any web servers that are behind it.

I’d totally pay a cloud provider to just do this and forward requests to my port 80 or 443 with self signed certificates.

Https+acme is already open to this attack vector, so why inconvenience myself by pretending it is not?

[codetrotter]

In our setup, TLS was already being terminated by Nginx or Caddy (I don’t remember which, but it was one of those two) sitting in front of another web server on the same host.

So inserting mitmproxy into the setup was just a case of putting it between the Nginx or Caddy that did TLS termination, and the web server that served the backend API. So to mitmproxy it was all plain HTTP traffic passing through it, locally on the same machine.

I bound the mitmweb web UI to the VPN interface so that us devs could connect to the dev server with VPN and then have access to the mitmweb web UI to inspect requests and responses.

[dandandan]

ngrok can do that

https://ngrok.com/docs/network-edge/domains-and-tcp-addresse... https://ngrok.com/docs/network-edge/tls-certificates/#automa...

[nitely]

Something not mentioned: web-browsers limit the number of connections per domain to 6. With +http/2 they will use a single connection for multiple concurrent requests.

[lemagedurage]

Yes. Besides other performance benefits, HTTP/3 saves a full roundtrip for connection by combining TCP and TLS handshakes.

[connicpu]

Depends. If they're running on the same box, the reverse proxy will be able to initiate tcp connections to the web server much more cheaply. Even if they're just in the same datacenter, the lower round trip latency will reduce the time for establishing TCP connections. Plus, the proxy might be load balancing across multiple instances of the backend.

[apitman]

Also browsers limit the number of HTTP/1.1 requests you can have in flight to a specific domain

[ahoka]

The limit is much higher for proxies, though.

[connicpu]

With a reverse proxy the browser doesn't know it's talking to one

[mhils]

One of the main promises of HTTP/3 is better performance under worse network conditions (e.g. no head-of-line blocking as in HTTP/2, connection migration, 0-RTT). For all of that HTTP/3 between client and proxy is really great. HTTP/3 between proxy and server is not required for that.

[jeltz]

Yes, for http/3 since it handles network issues better. Http/2 is of more doubtful value since it can choke really bad on packet loss.

[Narhem]

http/3 seems to be an excellent opportunity to optimize HTMX or any of the libraries which leverage HTML fragments like JSX. The obvious advantage of http/3 is for gaming.

The servers which run the frameworks have to http/3. In most cases the advantages should be transparent to the developers.

[deznu]

I’m curious what about HTTP/3 is particularly advantageous with HTMX?

[Narhem]

A common use case of HTMX is sending fragments when scrolling.

Since http/3 uses udp to send the fragments, duplicate packet information doesn’t have to be sent.

Kind of funny the newer protocol effectively works in the opposite direction of GraphQl.

[greenavocado]

Network congestion management is gonna be wild in the coming decade with the proliferation of udp based protocols