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

Mališa Vučinić <> Thu, 05 December 2019 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5084E120825 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 BK8u8Ubd37r2 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:07:51 -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 A33D4120818 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,282,1571695200"; d="scan'208,217";a="417925131"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2019 18:07:25 +0100
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E1308E14-90BE-4C5F-858D-03E1ADD928A5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:07:25 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Yasuyuki Yatch Tanaka <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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 17:07:57 -0000

The “join rate” parameter takes care that any single JP at the edge of the network does not inject too much traffic. But this traffic is forwarded along multiple hops towards the root, and therefore gets aggregated with (join) traffic from other JPs in the network. The purpose of the traffic tagging mechanism in minimal-security is for such nodes, closer to the DAG root, to avoid allocating cells in response to the join traffic.


> On 5 Dec 2019, at 17:48, Yasuyuki Tanaka <> wrote:
> 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?