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

Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr> Thu, 05 December 2019 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272C31201A3 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:48:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.92
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5vJWBXA8NcsF for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA1812012D for <6tisch@ietf.org>; 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 roc018r.vpn.inria.fr (HELO [128.93.183.18]) ([128.93.183.18]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 05 Dec 2019 17:48:25 +0100
Cc: yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
References: <CAAdgstRGHyRKoMLBhRih8yHwDvf-DTp42ZTEBmBP57FSgt8MyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <00c074fd-2423-1620-a7d1-3a899bbd000e@inria.fr>
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: <CAAdgstRGHyRKoMLBhRih8yHwDvf-DTp42ZTEBmBP57FSgt8MyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/2GJrq6LZjK21Ufpmp8DND0Ke48Y>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] MSF adapts to traffic only for secured packets
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:48:30 -0000

Hi,

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?

 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14#section-8.4
    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
       integer.

 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14#section-7.2
    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.

Best,
Yatch