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

Yasuyuki Tanaka <> Fri, 06 December 2019 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7315812006D for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:31:54 -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 UOx6vYClaInk for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:31:52 -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 B804B12006B for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:31:51 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,286,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="332351850"
Received: from (HELO []) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 06 Dec 2019 21:31:34 +0100
To:, Tengfei Chang <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:31:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 20:31:54 -0000

Hi Pascal, Tengfei,

On 12/6/2019 6:48 PM, Tengfei Chang wrote:
> Yes, MSF indeed aware of the routing information such as RPL parent, I 
> consider this is like an information stored at IPv6 layer that MSF can 
> read it from without touching the frame L2 payload.
> In such sense, I could consider the DSCP value can be another 
> information stored at upper layer that MSF have read access to it..

I think these two are different things...

Handling DSCP value will be a per-packet process. Can we pass DCSP value 
to the TSCH layer using the interface for transmission defined by 
IEEE802.15.4? I don't think so.

I don't see any problem in allocating additional cells for "acceptable" 
amount of traffic including relayed join requests. To prevent 
application packet drops, such allocations could be a good thing.

Rather than giving some L3 information to L2, the L3 may need L2 
information, like available bandwidth (cells) for a certain link. For 
the MSF case, if the IPv6 layer on an intermediate node limits outgoing 
traffic of relayed join requests below 20% of available bandwidth, 
undesired cell allocations could be avoided, assuming 
LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_HIGH is 75% and the link has almost the perfect link PDR.