IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr> Fri, 06 December 2019 22:24 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 BBC2F12008D for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:40 -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 ahC3SADT4uzQ for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:39 -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 BF21912002F for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:38 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,286,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="332358092"
Received: from poi92-3-88-190-144-98.fbxo.proxad.net (HELO [192.168.1.14]) ([88.190.144.98]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2019 23:24:36 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CAAdgstRB86SUFaMXqCzwggh6gy6Jx6uof3W5kDb3imMGZ85r6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 23:24:35 +0100
Cc: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tanaka@inria.fr>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C91BE829-44B4-479E-8835-2494D49B1FCD@inria.fr>
References: <CAAdgstRGHyRKoMLBhRih8yHwDvf-DTp42ZTEBmBP57FSgt8MyA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB35652B278DB4225DAAE30956D85C0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAAdgstQG7nkXr7tKffdChftjd8JDG4LvyOqepFsQ8eqZqHt0Aw@mail.gmail.com> <812b5502-9703-b99d-196b-3c983fdc0d5e@inria.fr> <CAAdgstRB86SUFaMXqCzwggh6gy6Jx6uof3W5kDb3imMGZ85r6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/zdB1oFaFVNeGr667hS1pL_6T6K8>
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 22:24:41 -0000

Thank you, Tengfei.

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 22:49, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>  
> TC: Not sure this is a standard way to do so. For implementing, tut this value or a flag could have a default value.
> TC: If this value is not given, i.e. frame from IEEE802.15.4 layer, just use the default value.

What we would do are:

- 1. don't update NumCellsUsed for AF43 packets, otherwise update them
- 2. don't update NumTX/NumTxAck for AF43 packets, otherwise update them

The first one may cause undesirable deallocations. If a node has relayed join request continuously for a certain period of time, the computed cell utilization (NumCellsUsed / NumCellsElapsed) goes down, then a negotiated TX cell will be deleted, even if the negotiated TX cell was scheduled to handle application traffic to forward. This behavior may degrade end-to-end reliability.

The second one may prevent the node from monitoring link PDRs on scheduled cells correctly. This could affect the scheduling collision detection.

Best,
Yatch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email