It is definitely deployed out there. I wouldn't worry too much about reading the specs. All of the implementations I've dealt with are only partial implementations. They almost all are limited to "point to point" functionality.

As for comparing to IPsec, IPsec came out of a different time. It is more of framework with a zillion knobs, and lots of room for customization and future changes. The keying isn't even a part of IPsec. ISAKMP, later IKE, are separate protocols. IPsec has transport mode (seldom used) and tunnel mode. It has AH (which no one uses) and ESP.

MACsec is much more narrowly defined. The cryptographic algorithms are standard. There is room for future updates of those algorithms, but for now, the implementers know what they need to do.

For those reasons, I think it is more straightforward to implement MACsec in firmware. I would expect if you trimmed down IPsec, which most NOS implementations already do, you can implement it in the same way.

Vendors have been charging big money for fast IPsec for a long time, they don't want to stop. But the MACsec price-point is so sweet compared to it, you now have people doing things like running MACsec over VXLAN in place of IPsec.


On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 1:32 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Regarding speed, the first few pages I hit made a comment that it was
slower because of packet overhead. I'm reading more and that is less of
a concern.

There's certainly a penalty paid for the extra time encrypting and decrypting , which of course can aggregate over a large number of protected links. 

But unless you're trying to manage latency budgets in the microseconds range it's not likely to be an issue.  

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:01 PM John Schiel <jschiel@flowtools.net> wrote:

Thanks.

I threw this out there not knowing how fast someone would respond.

I only heard about this recently and am surprised it as as old as it is.

Regarding speed, the first few pages I hit made a comment that it was
slower because of packet overhead. I'm reading more and that is less of
a concern.

--jas

On 10/21/24 12:28 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 20:34, John Schiel <jschiel@flowtools.net> wrote:
>
>>       1) May not work over wireless LAN devices?
> I guess it depends on wireless technology, but 802.11xyzzy comes with
> an encryption solution already so isn't really a target of interest.
>
>>       2) Needs a centralized key server.
> Not really, implementation detail.
>
>>       3) May not be supportable on all devices?
> Definitely not supported on all devices, you tend to pay extra, but
> getting an increasingly small premium to pay. May become essentially
> free, depending on demand.
>
>> Purported to be faster on the LAN than IPsec because MACsec is on layer 2.
> Speed doesn't have anything to do with layer2 or layer3, you may be
> assuming that ipsec is software and macsec is hardware which may be
> true, but is implementation detail. For example Juniper Trio can do
> some forms of IPSEC on the same hardware as MACSEC at the same
> performance profile.
>
>
> It is not exactly new technology, these devices have existed for +decade now?
>