Thanks, Malisa,
Then, why cannot the IPv6 layer on an intermediate have rate limiting in
order not to forward too much packets having AF43...? Forwarding
decisions are made at the IPv6 layer.
Even if the intermediate node drops excess amount of forwarded join
requests, the scheduling function in use still needs to do something? I
may be confused...
Yatch
On 12/5/2019 6:07 PM, Mališa Vučinić wrote:
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.
Mališa
On 5 Dec 2019, at 17:48, Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki.tan...@inria.fr
<mailto:yasuyuki.tan...@inria.fr>> 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?
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
