Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request]: Add support for HTTP/3 #1675

Open
pschiffe opened this issue Mar 25, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

[Feature Request]: Add support for HTTP/3 #1675

pschiffe opened this issue Mar 25, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@pschiffe
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Maybe doesn't even need to be configurable, just enable it. Requires UDP port 443.

https://doc.traefik.io/traefik/routing/entrypoints/#http3

@ToshY
Copy link

ToshY commented Apr 6, 2025

Even though I have this enabled for Traefik as well, as the Hetzner loadbalancer itself does not support UDP yet, is there any advantage in enabling it as a default option at the moment?

@pschiffe
Copy link
Contributor Author

pschiffe commented Apr 6, 2025

Ah, you're right -- I missed that the Hetzner LB doesn't support UDP or HTTP/3.

In that case, this feature doesn’t make much sense; it could work in setups without an LB, but I don’t think it’s really worth it.

Also, this probably only concerns the LB itself -- HTTP/3 for the upstream connection between the LB and the servers likely wouldn’t add much benefit.

I’ll try asking in the Hetzner forum about HTTP/3 support for the LB; in the meantime, this feature request can probably be postponed or closed.

@ToshY
Copy link

ToshY commented Apr 7, 2025

Ah, you're right -- I missed that the Hetzner LB doesn't support UDP or HTTP/3.

In that case, this feature doesn’t make much sense; it could work in setups without an LB, but I don’t think it’s really worth it.

Also, this probably only concerns the LB itself -- HTTP/3 for the upstream connection between the LB and the servers likely wouldn’t add much benefit.

I’ll try asking in the Hetzner forum about HTTP/3 support for the LB; in the meantime, this feature request can probably be postponed or closed.

Great, I messaged the support team last week as well, but they just gave a generic response.

We have forwarded your feedback as a feature request to our product development team for further evaluation.
They will compare your suggestion with those of other customers and then plan the next steps for our products.

So I'm hoping that if more people request it that it will be picked up sooner rather than later🤞

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants