Tag Archives: TCP

much faster curl uploads on Windows with a single tiny commit

These days, operating system kernels provide TCP/IP stacks that can do really fast network transfers. It's not even unusual for ordinary people to have gigabit connections at home and of course we want our applications to be able take advantage of them.

I don't think many readers here will be surprised when I say that fulfilling this desire turns out much easier said than done in the Windows world.

Autotuning?

Since Windows 7 / 2008R2, Windows implements send buffer autotuning. Simply put, the faster transfer and longer RTT the connection has, the larger the buffer it uses (up to a max) so that more un-acked data can be outstanding and thus enable the system to saturate even really fast links.

Turns out this useful feature isn't enabled when applications use non-blocking sockets. The send buffer isn't increased at all then.

Internally, curl is using non-blocking sockets and most of the code is platform agnostic so it wouldn't be practical to switch that off for a particular system. The code is pretty much independent of the target that will run it, and now with this latest find we have also started to understand why it doesn't always perform as well on Windows as on other operating systems: the upload buffer (SO_SNDBUF) is fixed size and simply too small to perform well in a lot of cases

Applications can still enlarge the buffer, if they're aware of this bottleneck, and get better performance without having to change libcurl, but I doubt a lot of them do. And really, libcurl should perform as good as it possibly can just by itself without any necessary tuning by the application authors.

Users testing this out

Daniel Jelinski brought a fix for this that repeatedly poll Windows during uploads to ask for a suitable send buffer size and then resizes it on the go if it deems a new size is better. In order to figure out that if this patch is indeed a good idea or if there's a downside for some, we went wide and called out for users to help us.

The results were amazing. With speedups up to almost 7 times faster, exactly those newer Windows versions that supposedly have autotuning can obviously benefit substantially from this patch. The median test still performed more than twice as fast uploads with the patch. Pretty amazing really. And beyond weird that this crazy thing should be required to get ordinary sockets to perform properly on an updated operating system in 2018.

Windows XP isn't affected at all by this fix, and we've seen tests running as VirtualBox guests in NAT-mode also not gain anything, but we believe that's VirtualBox's "fault" rather than Windows or the patch.

Landing

The commit is merged into curl's master git branch and will be part of the pending curl 7.61.1 release, which is due to ship on September 5, 2018. I think it can serve as an interesting case study to see how long time it takes until Windows 10 users get their versions updated to this.

Table of test runs

The Windows versions, and the test times for the runs with the unmodified curl, the patched one, how much time the second run needed as a percentage of the first, a column with comments and last a comment showing the speedup multiple for that test.

Thank you everyone who helped us out by running these tests!

Version Time vanilla Time patched New time Comment speedup
6.0.6002 15.234 2.234 14.66% Vista SP2 6.82
6.1.7601 8.175 2.106 25.76% Windows 7 SP1 Enterprise 3.88
6.1.7601 10.109 2.621 25.93% Windows 7 Professional SP1 3.86
6.1.7601 8.125 2.203 27.11% 2008 R2 SP1 3.69
6.1.7601 8.562 2.375 27.74% 3.61
6.1.7601 9.657 2.684 27.79% 3.60
6.1.7601 11.263 3.432 30.47% Windows 2008R2 3.28
6.1.7601 5.288 1.654 31.28% 3.20
10.0.16299.309 4.281 1.484 34.66% Windows 10, 1709 2.88
10.0.17134.165 4.469 1.64 36.70% 2.73
10.0.16299.547 4.844 1.797 37.10% 2.70
10.0.14393 4.281 1.594 37.23% Windows 10, 1607 2.69
10.0.17134.165 4.547 1.703 37.45% 2.67
10.0.17134.165 4.875 1.891 38.79% 2.58
10.0.15063 4.578 1.907 41.66% 2.40
6.3.9600 4.718 2.031 43.05% Windows 8 (original) 2.32
10.0.17134.191 3.735 1.625 43.51% 2.30
10.0.17713.1002 6.062 2.656 43.81% 2.28
6.3.9600 2.921 1.297 44.40% Windows 2012R2 2.25
10.0.17134.112 5.125 2.282 44.53% 2.25
10.0.17134.191 5.593 2.719 48.61% 2.06
10.0.17134.165 5.734 2.797 48.78% run 1 2.05
10.0.14393 3.422 1.844 53.89% 1.86
10.0.17134.165 4.156 2.469 59.41% had to use the HTTPS endpoint 1.68
6.1.7601 7.082 4.945 69.82% over proxy 1.43
10.0.17134.165 5.765 4.25 73.72% run 2 1.36
5.1.2600 10.671 10.157 95.18% Windows XP Professional SP3 1.05
10.0.16299.547 1.469 1.422 96.80% in a VM runing on Linux 1.03
5.1.2600 11.297 11.046 97.78% XP 1.02
6.3.9600 5.312 5.219 98.25% 1.02
5.2.3790 5.031 5 99.38% Windows 2003 1.01
5.1.2600 7.703 7.656 99.39% XP SP3 1.01
10.0.17134.191 1.219 1.531 125.59% FTP 0.80
TOTAL 205.303 102.271 49.81% 2.01
MEDIAN 43.51% 2.30

HTTP/2 connection coalescing

Section 9.1.1 in RFC7540 explains how HTTP/2 clients can reuse connections. This is my lengthy way of explaining how this works in reality.

Many connections in HTTP/1

With HTTP/1.1, browsers are typically using 6 connections per origin (host name + port). They do this to overcome the problems in HTTP/1 and how it uses TCP - as each connection will do a fair amount of waiting. Plus each connection is slow at start and therefore limited to how much data you can get and send quickly, you multiply that data amount with each additional connection. This makes the browser get more data faster (than just using one connection).

6 connections

Add sharding

Web sites with many objects also regularly invent new host names to trigger browsers to use even more connections. A practice known as "sharding". 6 connections for each name. So if you instead make your site use 4 host names you suddenly get 4 x 6 = 24 connections instead. Mostly all those host names resolve to the same IP address in the end anyway, or the same set of IP addresses. In reality, some sites use many more than just 4 host names.

24 connections

The sad reality is that a very large percentage of connections used for HTTP/1.1 are only ever used for a single HTTP request, and a very large share of the connections made for HTTP/1 are so short-lived they actually never leave the slow start period before they're killed off again. Not really ideal.

One connection in HTTP/2

With the introduction of HTTP/2, the HTTP clients of the world are going toward using a single TCP connection for each origin. The idea being that one connection is better in packet loss scenarios, it makes priorities/dependencies work and reusing that single connections for many more requests will be a net gain. And as you remember, HTTP/2 allows many logical streams in parallel over that single connection so the single connection doesn't limit what the browsers can ask for.

Unsharding

The sites that created all those additional host names to make the HTTP/1 browsers use many connections now work against the HTTP/2 browsers' desire to decrease the number of connections to a single one. Sites don't want to switch back to using a single host name because that would be a significant architectural change and there are still a fair number of HTTP/1-only browsers still in use.

Enter "connection coalescing", or "unsharding" as we sometimes like to call it. You won't find either term used in RFC7540, as it merely describes this concept in terms of connection reuse.

Connection coalescing means that the browser tries to determine which of the remote hosts that it can reach over the same TCP connection. The different browsers have slightly different heuristics here and some don't do it at all, but let me try to explain how they work - as far as I know and at this point in time.

Coalescing by example

Let's say that this cool imaginary site "example.com" has two name entries in DNS: A.example.com and B.example.com. When resolving those names over DNS, the client gets a list of IP address back for each name. A list that very well may contain a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. One list for each name.

You must also remember that HTTP/2 is also only ever used over HTTPS by browsers, so for each origin speaking HTTP/2 there's also a corresponding server certificate with a list of names or a wildcard pattern for which that server is authorized to respond for.

In our example we start out by connecting the browser to A. Let's say resolving A returns the IPs 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 from DNS, so the browser goes on and connects to the first of those addresses, the one ending with "1". The browser gets the server cert back in the TLS handshake and as a result of that, it also gets a list of host names the server can deal with: A.example.com and B.example.com. (it could also be a wildcard like "*.example.com")

If the browser then wants to connect to B, it'll resolve that host name too to a list of IPs. Let's say 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.3 here.

Host A: 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2
Host B: 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.3

Now hold it. Here it comes.

The Firefox way

Host A has two addresses, host B has two addresses. The lists of addresses are not the same, but there is an overlap - both lists contain 192.168.0.2. And the host A has already stated that it is authoritative for B as well. In this situation, Firefox will not make a second connect to host B. It will reuse the connection to host A and ask for host B's content over that single shared connection. This is the most aggressive coalescing method in use.

one connection

The Chrome way

Chrome features a slightly less aggressive coalescing. In the example above, when the browser has connected to 192.168.0.1 for the first host name, Chrome will require that the IPs for host B contains that specific IP for it to reuse that connection.  If the returned IPs for host B really are 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.3, it clearly doesn't contain 192.168.0.1 and so Chrome will create a new connection to host B.

Chrome will reuse the connection to host A if resolving host B returns a list that contains the specific IP of the connection host A is already using.

The Edge and Safari ways

They don't do coalescing at all, so each host name will get its own single connection. Better than the 6 connections from HTTP/1 but for very sharded sites that means a lot of connections even in the HTTP/2 case.

curl also doesn't coalesce anything (yet).

Surprises and a way to mitigate them

Given some comments in the Firefox bugzilla, the aggressive coalescing sometimes causes some surprises. Especially when you have for example one IPv6-only host A and a second host B with both IPv4 and IPv4 addresses. Asking for data on host A can then still use IPv4 when it reuses a connection to B (assuming that host A covers host B in its cert).

In the rare case where a server gets a resource request for an authority (or scheme) it can't serve, there's a dedicated error code 421 in HTTP/2 that it can respond with and the browser can then  go back and retry that request on another connection.

Starts out with 6 anyway

Before the browser knows that the server speaks HTTP/2, it may fire up 6 connection attempts so that it is prepared to get the remote site at full speed. Once it figures out that it doesn't need all those connections, it will kill off the unnecessary unused ones and over time trickle down to one. Of course, on subsequent connections to the same origin the client may have the version information cached so that it doesn't have to start off presuming HTTP/1.

Workshop day two

HTTP Workshop At 5pm we rounded off another fully featured day at the HTTP workshop. Here's some of what we touched on today:

Moritz started the morning with an interesting presentation about experiments with running the exact same site and contents on h1 vs h2 over different kinds of networks, with different packet loss scenarios and with different ICWND set and more. Very interesting stuff. If he makes his presentation available at some point I'll add a link to it.

I then got the honor to present the state of the TCP Tuning draft (which I've admittedly been neglecting a bit lately), the slides are here. I made it brief but I still got some feedback and in general this is a draft that people seem to agree is a good idea - keep sending me your feedback and help me improve it. I just need to pull myself together now and move it forward. I tried to be quick to leave over to...

Jana, who was back again to tell us about QUIC and the state of things in that area. His presentation apparently was a subset of slides he presented last week in the Berlin IETF. One interesting take-away for me, was that they've noticed that the amount of connections for which they detect UDP rate limiting on, has decreased with 2/3 during the last year!

Here's my favorite image from his slide set. Apparently TCP/2 is not a name for QUIC that everybody appreciates! 😉

call-it-tcp2-one-more-time

While I think the topic of QUIC piqued the interest of most people in the room and there were a lot of questions, thoughts and ideas around the topic we still managed to get the lunch break pretty much in time and we could run off and have another lovely buffet lunch. There's certainly no risk for us loosing weight during this event...

After lunch we got ourselves a series of Lightning talks presented for us. Seven short talks on various subjects that people had signed up to do

One of the lightning talks that stuck with me was what I would call the idea about an extended Happy Eyeballs approach that I'd like to call Even Happier Eyeballs: make the client TCP connect to all IPs in a DNS response and race them against each other and use the one that responds with a SYN-ACK first. There was interest expressed in the room to get this concept tested out for real in at least one browser.

We then fell over into the area of HTTP/3 ideas and what the people in the room think we should be working on for that. It turned out that the list of stuff we created last year at the workshop was still actually a pretty good list and while we could massage that a bit, it is still mostly the same as before.

Anne presented fetch and how browsers use HTTP. Perhaps a bit surprising that soon brought us over into the subject of trailers, how to support that and voilá, in the end we possibly even agreed that we should perhaps consider handling them somehow in browsers and even for javascript APIs... ( nah, curl/libcurl doesn't have any particular support for trailers, but will of course get that if we'll actually see things out there start to use it for real)

I think we deserved a few beers after this day! The final workshop day is tomorrow.

curl 7.49.0 goodies coming

Here's a closer look at three new features that we're shipping in curl and libcurl 7.49.0, to be released on May 18th 2016.

connect to this instead

If you're one of the users who thought --resolve and doing Host: header tricks with --header weren't good enough, you'll appreciate that we're adding yet another option for you to fiddle with the connection procedure. Another "Swiss army knife style" option for you who know what you're doing.

With --connect-to you basically provide an internal alias for a certain name + port to instead internally use another name + port to connect to.

Instead of connecting to HOST1:PORT1, connect to HOST2:PORT2

It is very similar to --resolve which is a way to say: when connecting to HOST1:PORT1 use this ADDR2:PORT2. --resolve effectively prepopulates the internal DNS cache and makes curl completely avoid the DNS lookup and instead feeds it with the IP address you'd like it to use.

--connect-to doesn't avoid the DNS lookup, but it will make sure that a different host name and destination port pair is used than what was found in the URL. A typical use case for this would be to make sure that your curl request asks a specific server out of several in a pool of many, where each has a unique name but you normally reach them with a single URL who's host name is otherwise load balanced.

--connect-to can be specified multiple times to add mappings for multiple names, so that even following HTTP redirects to other host names etc can be handled. You don't even necessarily have to redirect the first used host name.

The libcurl option name for for this feature is CURLOPT_CONNECT_TO.

Michael Kaufmann brought this feature.

http2 prior knowledge

In our ongoing quest to provide more and better HTTP/2 support in a world that is slowly but steadily doing more and more transfers over the new version of the protocol, curl now offers --http2-prior-knowledge.

As the name might hint, this is a way to tell curl that you have "prior knowledge" that the URL you specifies goes to a host that you know supports HTTP/2. The term prior knowledge is in fact used in the HTTP/2 spec (RFC 7540) for this scenario.

Normally when given a HTTP:// or a HTTPS:// URL, there will be no assumption that it supports HTTP/2 but curl when then try to upgrade that from version HTTP/1. The command line tool tries to upgrade all HTTPS:// URLs by default even, and libcurl can be told to do so.

libcurl wise, you ask for a prior knowledge use by setting CURLOPT_HTTP_VERSION to CURL_HTTP_VERSION_2_PRIOR_KNOWLEDGE.

Asking for http2 prior knowledge when the server does in fact not support HTTP/2 will give you an error back.

Diego Bes brought this feature.

TCP Fast Open

TCP Fast Open is documented in RFC 7413 and is basically a way to pass on data to the remote machine earlier in the TCP handshake - already in the SYN and SYN-ACK packets. This of course as a means to get data over faster and reduce latency.

The --tcp-fastopen option is supported on Linux and OS X only for now.

This is an idea and technique that has been around for a while and it is slowly getting implemented and supported by servers. There have been some reports of problems in the wild when "middle boxes" that fiddle with TCP traffic see these packets, that sometimes result in breakage. So this option is opt-in to avoid the risk that it causes problems to users.

A typical real-world case where you would use this option is when  sending an HTTP POST to a site you don't have a connection already established to. Just note that TFO relies on the client having had contact established with the server before and having a special TFO "cookie" stored and non-expired.

TCP Fast Open is so far only used for clear-text TCP protocols in curl. These days more and more protocols switch over to their TLS counterparts (and there's room for future improvements to add the initial TLS handshake parts with TFO). A related option to speed up TLS handshakes is --false-start (supported with the NSS or the secure transport backends).

With libcurl, you enable TCP Fast Open with CURLOPT_TCP_FASTOPEN.

Alessandro Ghedini brought this feature.

TCP tuning for HTTP

I'm the author of a brand new internet-draft that I submitted just the other day. The title is TCP Tuning for HTTP,  and the intent is to gather a set of current best practices for HTTP implementers; to share and distribute knowledge we've gathered over the years. Clients, servers and intermediaries. For HTTP/1.1 as well as HTTP/2.

I'm now awaiting, expecting and looking forward to feedback, criticisms and additional content for this document so that it can become the resource I'd like it to be.

How to contribute to this?

  1.  ideally, send your feedback to the HTTPbis mailing list,
  2. or submit an issue or pull-request on github for the draft.md
  3. or simply email me your comments: daniel <at> haxx.se

I've been participating first passively and more and more actively over the years within the IETF, mostly in the HTTPbis working group. I think open protocols and open standards are important and I like being part of making them reality. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who are involved in putting the RFCs together and thus improve the world we live in, step by step.

For a long while I've been wanting  to step up and "pull my weight" too,  to become a better participant in this area, and I'm happy to now finally take this step. Hopefully this is just the first step of many more to come.

(Psssst: While gathering feedback and updating the git version, the current work in progress version of the draft is always visible here.)

Pretending port zero is a normal one

Speaking the TCP protocol, we communicate between "ports" in the local and remote ends. Each of these port fields are 16 bits in the protocol header so they can hold values between 0 - 65535. (IPv4 or IPv6 are the same here.) We usually do HTTP on port 80 and we do HTTPS on port 443 and so on. We can even play around and use them on various other custom ports when we feel like it.

But what about port 0 (zero) ? Sure, IANA lists the port as "reserved" for TCP and UDP but that's just a rule in a list of ports, not actually a filter implemented by anyone.

In the actual TCP protocol port 0 is nothing special but just another number. Several people have told me "it is not supposed to be used" or that it is otherwise somehow considered bad to use this port over the internet. I don't really know where this notion comes from more than that IANA listing.

Frank Gevaerts helped me perform some experiments with TCP port zero on Linux.

In the Berkeley sockets API widely used for doing TCP communications, port zero has a bit of a harder situation. Most of the functions and structs treat zero as just another number so there's virtually no problem as a client to connect to this port using for example curl. See below for a printout from a test shot.

Running a TCP server on port 0 however, is tricky since the bind() function uses a zero in the port number to mean "pick a random one" (I can only assume this was a mistake done eons ago that can't be changed). For this test, a little iptables trickery was run so that incoming traffic on TCP port 0 would be redirected to port 80 on the server machine, so that we didn't have to patch any server code.

Entering a URL with port number zero to Firefox gets this message displayed:

This address uses a network port which is normally used for purposes other than Web browsing. Firefox has canceled the request for your protection.

... but Chrome accepts it and tries to use it as given.

The only little nit that remains when using curl against port 0 is that it seems glibc's getpeername() assumes this is an illegal port number and refuses to work. I marked that line in curl's output in red below just to highlight it for you. The actual source code with this check is here. This failure is not lethal for libcurl, it will just have slightly less info but will still continue to work. I claim this is a glibc bug.

$ curl -v http://10.0.0.1:0 -H "Host: 10.0.0.1"
* Rebuilt URL to: http://10.0.0.1:0/
* Hostname was NOT found in DNS cache
* Trying 10.0.0.1...
* getpeername() failed with errno 107: Transport endpoint is not connected
* Connected to 10.0.0.1 () port 0 (#0)
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> User-Agent: curl/7.38.1-DEV
> Accept: */*
> Host: 10.0.0.1
>
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:08:02 GMT
< Server: Apache/2.4.10 (Debian)
< Last-Modified: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:48:34 GMT
< Content-Length: 22
< Content-Type: text/html

 

<html>testpage</html>

Why doing this experiment? Just for fun to to see if it worked.

(Discussion and comments on this post is also found at Reddit.)

Websockets right now

Lots of sites today have JavaScript running that connects to the site and keeps the connection open for a long time (or just doing very frequent checks if there is updated info to get). This to such an wide extent that people have started working on a better way. A way for scripts in browsers to connect to a site in a TCP-like manner to exchange messages back and forth, something that doesn't suffer from the problems HTTP provides when (ab)used for this purpose.

Websockets is the name of the technology that has been lifted out from the HTML5 spec, taken to the IETF and is being worked on there to produce a network protocol that is basically a message-based low level protocol over TCP, designed to allow browsers to do long-living connections to servers instead of using "long-polling HTTP", Ajax polling or other more or less ugly tricks.

Unfortunately, the name is used for both the on-the-wire protocol as well as the JavaScript API so there's room for confusion when you read or hear this term, but I'm completely clueless about JavaScript so you can rest assured that I will only refer to the actual network protocol when I speak of Websockets!

I'm tracking the Hybi mailing list closely, and I'm summarizing this post on some of the issues that's been debated lately. It is not an attempt to cover it all. There is a lot more to be said, both now and in the future.

The first versions of Websockets that were implemented by browsers (Chrome) was the -75 version, as written by Ian Hickson as editor and the main man behind it as it came directly from the WHATWG team (the group of browser-people that work on the HTML5 spec).

He also published a -76 version (that was implemented by Firefox) before it was taken over by the IETF's Hybi working group, who published that same document as its -00 draft.

There are representatives for a lot of server software and from browsers like Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on the list (no Internet Explorer people seem to be around).

Some Problems

The 76/00 version broke compatibility with the previous version and it also isn't properly HTTP compatible that is wanted and needed by many.

The way Ian and WHATWG have previously worked on this (and the html5 spec?) is mostly by Ian leading and being the benevolent dictator of what's good, what's right and what goes into the spec. The collision with IETF's way of working that include "everyone can have a say" and "rough consensus" has been harsh and a reason for a lot of arguments and long threads on the hybi mailing list, and I will throw out a guess that it will continue to be the source of "flames" even in the future.

Ian maintains - for example - that a hard requirement on the protocol is that it needs to be "trivial to implement for amateurs", while basically everyone else have come to the conclusion that this requirement is mostly silly and should be reworded to "be simple" or similar, that avoids the word "amateur" completely or the implying that amateurs wouldn't be able to follow specs etc.

Right now

(This is early August 2010, things and facts in this protocol are likely to change, potentially a lot, over time so if you read this later on you need to take the date of this writing into account.)

There was a Hybi meeting at the recent IETF 78 meeting in Maastricht where a range of issues got discussed and some of the controversial subjects did actually get quite convincing consensus - and some of those didn't at all match the previous requirements or the existing -00 spec.

Almost in parallel, Ian suggested a schedule for work ahead that most people expressed a liking in: provide a version of the protocol that can be done in 4 weeks for browsers to adjust to right now, and then work on an updated version to be shipped in 6 months with more of the unknowns detailed.

There's a very lively debate going on about the need for chunking, the need for multiplexing multiple streams over a single TCP connection and there was a very very long debate going on regarding if the protocol should send data length-prefixed or if data should use a sentinel that marks the end of it. The length-prefix approach (favored by yours truly) seem to have finally won. Exactly how the framing is to be done, what parts that are going to be core protocol and what to leave for extensions and how extensions should work are not yet settled. I think everyone wants the protocol to be "as simple as possible" but everyone has their own mind setup on what amount of features that "the simplest" possible form of the protocol has.

The subject on exactly how the handshake is going to be done isn't quite agreed to either by my reading, even if there's a way defined in the -00 spec. The primary connection method will be using a HTTP Upgrade: header and thus connect to the server's port 80 and then upgrade the protocol from HTTP over to Websockets. A procedure that is documented and supported by HTTP, but there's been a discussion on how exactly that should be done so that cross-protocol requests can be avoided to the furthest possible extent.

We've seen up and beyond 50 mails per day on the hybi mailing list during some of the busiest days the last couple of weeks. I don't see any signs of it cooling down short-term, so I think the 4 weeks goal seems a bit too ambitious at this point but I'm not ruling it out. Especially since the working procedure with Ian at the wheel is not "IETF-ish" but it's not controlled entirely by Ian either.

Future

We are likely to see a future world with a lot of client-side applications connecting back to the server. The amount of TCP connections for a single browser is likely to increase, a lot. In fact, even a single web application within a single tab is likely to do multiple websocket connections when they re-use components and widgets from several others.

It is also likely that libcurl will get a websocket implementation in the future to do raw websocket transfers with, as it most likely will be needed in a future to properly emulate a browser/client.

I hope to keep tracking the development, occasionally express my own opinion on the matter (on the list and here), but mostly stay on top of what's going on so that I can feed that knowledge to my friends and make sure that the curl project keeps up with the time.

chinese-socket

(The pictured socket might not be a websocket, but it is a pretty remarkably designed power socket that is commonly seen in China, and as you can see it accepts and works with many of the world's different power plug designs.)