11

I already asked this question on SF, but figured it might be a better fit here.

Is it at all possible to extend MACSec encryption over a provider bridge? Will the typical 802.1ad implementation be able to forward the encrypted frame, or will forwarding break frame integrity?

I do realize MACSec is intended for hop-by-hop security. Are there any reasons not to use MACSec for point-to-point encryption over a carrier, or other special considerations that should be taken into account?

The reason I ask is that MACSec hardware offers wirespeed encryption at a fraction of the typical cost associated with layer 2 encryption.

I don't have the rep to add new tags, but feel free to add relevant tags for MACSec, PBN, 802.1ad and 802.1ae etc

4

MacSec (i.e. 802.1ae-2006) is a hop-by-hop encyption technology... Therefore provider-bridged MacSec isn't possible today; however, there is a talk of relaxing per-hop MacSec encryption

  • But if the MACSec encrypted frame is encapsulated and tagged with S-VLAN at ingress, forwarded through the PBN and the S-VLAN encapsulation is removed at egress on the other side. Won't the customer switches see this as a single hop, just like with EoMPLS? Perhaps supported by an encryption offset, so the C-VLAN tag is still visible? – Roy Jul 5 '13 at 12:11
  • Thanks for the link, btw. I already have that document sitting on my desk, although some of it is quite incomprehensible to me :) – Roy Jul 5 '13 at 12:14
  • If you read the first page of the paper, it explains very clearly that PBN is not supported today... "This note explains why IEEE 802.1AE–2006 does not include multi-hop possibilities that might appear ‘interesting’ at first glance" – Mike Pennington Jul 5 '13 at 12:17
  • 1
    Well, in the ingress is also says "This note explains why these bridges can be treated as a 'single hop'". I hope you can see why I find this just a little a confusing, especially considering that EoMPLS encapsulation seems to work just fine. – Roy Jul 5 '13 at 12:20
1

From what I gather thus far if the MACsec endpoint where to C-tag/ then add the sec header then the s-tag and the PBN forwarded the frame based on the s-tag that the MACsec endpoint created it should work. The fuzziness comes in where the PBN adds the s-tag to the frame which changes the FCS and possibly alerts the other endpoint that the frame has been tampered with/modified and therefore the integrity cannot be validated. I'm not 100% on this but that is what I think keeps end to end MACsec from working.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.