Re: [6tisch] MSF adapts to traffic only for secured packets

Yasuyuki Tanaka <> Thu, 05 December 2019 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272C31201A3 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:48:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5vJWBXA8NcsF for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA1812012D for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:48:27 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,282,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="331498795"
Received: from (HELO []) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 05 Dec 2019 17:48:25 +0100
References: <>
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:48:25 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] MSF adapts to traffic only for secured packets
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:48:30 -0000


On 12/5/2019 5:17 PM, Tengfei Chang wrote:
> Does anyone know other way to make the SF not adapt to unsecured traffic 
> without knowing upper layer field?

I have no idea...

Why can't the "join rate" avoid such undesired cell allocations? If the 
join rate is properly configured, incoming join requests don't cause 
such allocations, do they?
    o  join rate: Average data rate (in units of bytes/second) of join
       traffic forwarded into the network that should not be exceeded
       when a joined node operates as a JP, encoded as an unsigned
    The PROBING_RATE value at the JP is controlled by the join rate
    parameter, see Section 8.4.2.  Following [RFC7252], the average data
    rate in sending to the JRC must not exceed PROBING_RATE.  For
    security reasons, the average data rate SHOULD be measured over a
    rather short window, e.g.  ACK_TIMEOUT, see Section 9.

The recommended PROBING_RATE is 1 byte/second. I'm not sure how to 
interpret this value, though.... The time window to calculate the "rate" 
should be small enough, I believe.