Pascal, See inline.
Mališa > On 1 Dec 2017, at 14:32, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Certainly Mališa. The reason for a different TC is to treat them differently. > The join response represents an investment of resources in the network and an > acceptance by the JRC (so it's not an attack, is it?). You are right, in case of minimal-security, downstream join traffic (i.e. join response) cannot be used as part of an attack. In case of zero-touch, we will have downstream traffic that *could* have been induced by an attack because we will need multiple round trips before the pledge is authenticated and authorized to join by the JRC. SF is oblivious of whether join traffic is upstream or downstream — it shouldn’t allocate new cells in either case. > Seems a good idea to protect it. Do I have that wrong? By ‘protect it’, do you mean give downstream join traffic higher priority in the buffers over data traffic? If so, that’s already taken care of just by using a non-zero TC. And the same holds for upstream join traffic, since it uses a non-zero TC. _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
