Is the Web HTTP/2 Yet?

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 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  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

  1. 1.Telefónica ResearchBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations