Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > Yet not sure the MAY on the return path is a good idea. Either make it > a SHOULD or a no no. Otherwise we do not know what to expect in a given > network with mixed implementations.
I can live with SHOULD.
SHOULD means that a co-located JRC which has access to the scheduling APIs
can do the right thing and not have to spend a byte on DSCP.
As I say, the 6LBR can also have an ACL to recognize the join responses.
> I think that it is actually an important traffic now that security
> checks were done. More so than some data from a sensor. It is probably
> still a good idea to tag this packet and the rest of the join but not
> with AF43. We want to favor it over data else the network will never
> come up...
yes, I agree with the argument, and I was thinking it myself. S
Should be be AF42 then? Something higher?
Or do you propose some other treatment?
Please realize that the tagging that we do for 6tisch-minimal-security will
also be identically used for 6tisch-zerotouch-join, and that traffic might be
larger, and it will take some additional round trips before we know that the
node is legitimate. (many RTTs if we have to use DTLS, two if we can have
EDHOC)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
