| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Oh, I agree that being able to stay with GCM for 802.3 MAC security
is preferred. Even for this new work which will include smaller
devices. Best to frame the issues now to see if 802.3 needs to go
to 802.1 for them to provide the needed functionality. And 11i was CCM. 11ac made the move to GCM. On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, Joseph Byrne
wrote:
Robert, For the reasons you supplied (speed and scalability) GCM is preferred. Moreover, MACsec is often implemented in the MAC. Deviating from accepted practice would mean either forcing the industry to always put it in the PHY or for MACs to support both versions. Neither is acceptable, especially in light of the acceptance GCM has garnered since the days of 11i. Moreover, I think predicating 1000Base-T1 on developing a new MACsec standard would slow the process of developing -T1. JB -----Original Message----- From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:rgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 5:00 PM To: STDS-802-3-NGECDC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [802.3_NGECDC] Single twisted pair, 1km CFI slide review I will add one more item to consider, and that is security. Security for 802.3 frames is provided by 802.1AE which specifies the AES GCM mode of operation. GCM was specifically developed back for 802.3ah (EPON) and is designed for fast, parallelizable operation. This is achieved at a cost to memory over CCM which was developed for 802.11i and is used in 802.15.4 as well. An oft discussion is GCM or CCM, and in constrained environments, CCM typically wins. As such this work should include a matching effort in 802.1 to add CCM to 802.1AE. This is a first-level evaluation of the cost of security for LRE devices and more discussion and research will be needed. --
Robert Moskowitz Owner HTT Consulting C: F: E: There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit |