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

Yasuyuki Tanaka <> Fri, 06 December 2019 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC2F12008D for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:40 -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 ahC3SADT4uzQ for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:24:39 -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 BF21912002F for <>; 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 (HELO []) ([]) by 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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:24:35 +0100
Cc: Yasuyuki Tanaka <>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, 6tisch <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Tengfei Chang <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
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 22:24:41 -0000

Thank you, Tengfei.

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 22:49, Tengfei Chang <> 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.