Is the Web HTTP/2 Yet?

  • Matteo Varvello
  • Kyle Schomp
  • David Naylor
  • Jeremy Blackburn
  • Alessandro Finamore
  • Konstantina Papagiannaki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9631)


Version 2 of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/2) was finalized in May 2015 as RFC 7540. It addresses well-known problems with HTTP/1.1 (e.g., head of line blocking and redundant headers) and introduces new features (e.g., server push and content priority). Though HTTP/2 is designed to be the future of the web, it remains unclear whether the web will—or should—hop on board. To shed light on this question, we built a measurement platform that monitors HTTP/2 adoption and performance across the Alexa top 1 million websites on a daily basis. Our system is live and up-to-date results can be viewed at [1]. In this paper, we report findings from an 11 month measurement campaign (November 2014 – October 2015). As of October 2015, we find 68,000 websites reporting HTTP/2 support, of which about 10,000 actually serve content with it. Unsurprisingly, popular sites are quicker to adopt HTTP/2 and 31 % of the Alexa top 100 already support it. For the most part, websites do not change as they move from HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2; current web development practices like inlining and domain sharding are still present. Contrary to previous results, we find that these practices make HTTP/2 more resilient to losses and jitter. In all, we find that 80 % of websites supporting HTTP/2 experience a decrease in page load time compared with HTTP/1.1 and the decrease grows in mobile networks.


Application Protocol Transport Layer Security Measurement Platform Domain Sharding Server Push 


  1. 1.
    Is the Web HTTP/2 Yet?.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Langley, A.: TLS Next Protocol Negotiation.
  5. 5.
    Akhshabi, S., Dovrolis, C.: The evolution of layered protocol stacks leads to an hourglass-shaped architecture. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, Toronto, Canada, August 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardaci, A.: Chrome har capturer.
  7. 7.
    Erman, J., Gopalakrishnan, V., Jana, R., Ramakrishnan, K.: Towards a SPDYier mobile web?. In: Proceedings of the ACM CoNEXT, Santa Barbara, CA, December 2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    White, G., Mule, J.-F., Rice, D.: Analysis of spdy and tcp initcwnd.
  9. 9.
    Molnár, G.: node-http2.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Podjarny, G.: Not as spdy as you thought.
  12. 12.
    Rizzo, J., Duong, T.: The crime attack. In: Ekoparty (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naylor, D., Finamore, A., Leontiadis, I., Grunenberger, Y., Mellia, M., Munafò, M., Papagiannaki, K., Steenkiste, P.: The cost of the “S” in HTTPS. In: Proceedings of the ACM CoNEXT, Sydney, Australia, December 2014Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OpenSSL: OpenSSL: The Open Source Toolkit for SSL/TLS.
  15. 15.
    Padhye, J., Nielsen, H.F.: A comparison of spdy and http performance. Technical report (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peon, R., Ruellan, H.: Hpack - header compression for http/2.
  17. 17.
    Saxcè, H.D., Oprescu, I., ChenSaamer, Y.: Is HTTP/2 really faster than HTTP/1.1?. In: Proceedings ot he IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI), Hong Kong, CH, April 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stenberg, D.: HTTP2, background, the protocol, the implementations and the future.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., Stephan, E.: Transport layer security (tls) application-layer protocol negotiation extension.
  21. 21.
    The http archive:
  22. 22.
    Tuan, N.A.: Maximum concurrent connections to the same domain for browsers.
  23. 23.
    Wang, X.S., Balasubramanian, A., Krishnamurthy, A., Wetherall, D.: How speedy is spdy. In: Proceedings of the NSDI, Seattle, WA, April 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Varvello
    • 1
  • Kyle Schomp
    • 2
  • David Naylor
    • 3
  • Jeremy Blackburn
    • 1
  • Alessandro Finamore
    • 1
  • Konstantina Papagiannaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Telefónica ResearchBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations