draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-06.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-07.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger
Expires: November 7, 2020 D. Fedyk Expires: March 5, 2021 D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
J. Korhonen J. Korhonen
May 6, 2020 September 1, 2020
DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-06 draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-07
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating in an IP over MPLS packet switched network. encapsulating IP over an MPLS packet switched network.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 7, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IP over DetNet MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 6
5. IP over DetNet MPLS Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IP over DetNet MPLS Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification 5.1. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Flow Identification
and Aggregation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 and Aggregation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures . 8 5.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Traffic Treatment Procedures . 8
6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
Architecture [RFC8655]. Architecture [RFC8655].
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] to the DetNet MPLS data plane defined in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used In This Document 2.1. Terms Used In This Document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [RFC8655] and DetNet architecture [RFC8655] and
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], and the reader is assumed to [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework], the reader is assumed to be
be familiar with these documents and their terminology. familiar with these documents and their terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
This document uses the abbreviations defined in the DetNet This document uses the abbreviations defined in the DetNet
architecture [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. architecture [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
This document uses the following abbreviations: This document uses the following abbreviations:
CE Customer Edge equipment. CE Customer Edge equipment.
d-CW DetNet Control Word. d-CW DetNet Control Word.
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 19
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
Figure 1 illustrates an IP DetNet, with an MPLS based DetNet network Figure 1 illustrates an IP DetNet, with an MPLS based DetNet network
as a sub-network between the relay nodes. It shows a more complex as a sub-network between the relay nodes. An IP flow is mapped to
DetNet enabled IP network where an IP flow is mapped to one or more one or more PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate
PWs and MPLS (TE) LSPs. The end systems still originate IP IP encapsulated traffic, identified as DetNet flows. The relay nodes
encapsulated traffic that are identified as DetNet flows. The relay follow procedures defined in Section 4 to map each DetNet flow to
nodes follow procedures defined in Section 4 to map each DetNet flow MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can provide service sub-
to MPLS LSPs. While not shown, relay nodes can provide service sub-
layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is layer functions such as PREOF using DetNet over MPLS, and this is
indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the indicated by the solid line for the MPLS facing portion of the
Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware Service component. Note that the Transit node is MPLS (TE) LSP aware
and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any and performs switching based on MPLS labels, and need not have any
specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet specific knowledge of the DetNet service or the corresponding DetNet
flow identification. See Section 4 for details on the mapping of IP flow identification. See Section 4 for details on the mapping of IP
flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] for general support of flows to MPLS, and [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] for general support of
DetNet services using MPLS. DetNet services using MPLS.
DetNet IP Relay Transit Relay DetNet IP DetNet IP Relay Transit Relay DetNet IP
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
This section defines how IP encapsulated flows are carried over a This section defines how IP encapsulated flows are carried over a
DetNet MPLS data plane as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since DetNet MPLS data plane as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since
both Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packet are identical on the wire, this both Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packet are identical on the wire, this
section is applicable to any node that supports IP over DetNet MPLS, section is applicable to any node that supports IP over DetNet MPLS,
and this section refers to both cases as DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS. and this section refers to both cases as DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS.
4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios 4.1. IP Over DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios
An example use of DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS is presented here. An example use of DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS is presented here.
Figure 1 illustrated DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts), connected to Figure 1 illustrates IP DetNet enabled End Systems (hosts) connected
DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet aware MPLS to DetNet (DN) enabled IP networks, operating over a DetNet aware
network. Using this figure we can have a case where the Relay nodes MPLS network. In this Figure we have a case where the Relay nodes
act as T-PEs and sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since the act as T-PEs and sit at the boundary of the MPLS domain since the
non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware. This case is very similar to the non-MPLS domain is DetNet aware. This case is very similar to the
DetNet MPLS Network figure 2 in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. However in DetNet MPLS Network Figure 2 in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. However, in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] figure 2 the T-PEs are located at the end [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Figure 2, the T-PEs are located at the end
system and MPLS spans the whole DetNet service. The primary system and MPLS spans the whole DetNet service. The primary
difference in this document is that the Relay nodes are at the edges difference in this document is that the Relay nodes are at the edges
of the MPLS domain and therefore function as T-PEs, and that MPLS of the MPLS domain and therefore function as T-PEs, and that MPLS
service sub-layer functions are not provided over the DetNet IP service sub-layer functions are not provided over the DetNet IP
network. The transit node functions show above are identical to network. The transit node functions shown above are identical to
those described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. those described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
Figure 2 illustrates how relay nodes can provide service protection Figure 2 illustrates how relay nodes can provide service protection
over an MPLS domain. In this case, CE1 and CE2 are IP DetNet end over an MPLS domain. In this case, CE1 and CE2 are IP DetNet end
systems which are interconnected via a MPLS domain such as described systems which are interconnected via a MPLS domain such as described
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Note that R1 and R3 sit at the edges of in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Note that R1 and R3 sit at the edges of
an MPLS domain and therefore are similar to T-PEs, while R2 sits in an MPLS domain and therefore are similar to T-PEs, while R2 sits in
the middle of the domain and is therefore similar to an S-PE. the middle of the domain and is therefore similar to an S-PE.
DetNet DetNet DetNet DetNet
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 30
| | | |
|<-------------- End to End DetNet Service --------------->| |<-------------- End to End DetNet Service --------------->|
-------------------------- Data Flow -------------------------> -------------------------- Data Flow ------------------------->
X = Service protection (PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF) X = Service protection (PRF, PREOF, PEF/POF)
DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP DFx = DetNet member flow x over a TE LSP
Figure 2: Service Protection Over DetNet MPLS Network for DetNet IP Figure 2: Service Protection Over DetNet MPLS Network for DetNet IP
Figure 1 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems, connected to DetNet Figure 1 illustrates DetNet enabled End Systems connected to DetNet
(DN) enabled MPLS network. A similar situation occurs when end (DN) enabled MPLS network. A similar situation occurs when end
systems are are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at systems are not DetNet aware. In this case, edge nodes sit at the
the boundary of the MPLS domain since it is also a DetNet domain boundary of the MPLS domain since it is also a DetNet domain
boundary. The edge nodes provide DetNet service proxies for the end boundary. The edge nodes provide DetNet service proxies for the end
applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the applications by initiating and terminating DetNet service for the
application's IP flows. While the node types differ, there is application's IP flows. While the node types differ, there is
essentially no difference in data plane processing between relay and essentially no difference in data plane processing between relay and
edges. There are likely to be differences in controller plane edges. There are likely to be differences in controller plane
operation, particularly when distributed control plane protocols are operation, particularly when distributed control plane protocols are
used. used.
It is still possible to provided DetNet service protection for non- It is still possible to provide DetNet service protection for non-
DetNet aware end systems. This case is basically the same as DetNet aware end systems. This case is basically the same as
Figure 2, with the exception that CE1 and CE2 are non-DetNet aware Figure 2, with the exception that CE1 and CE2 are non-DetNet aware
end systems and R1 and R3 become edge nodes. end systems and R1 and R3 become edge nodes.
4.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation 4.2. DetNet IP over DetNet MPLS Encapsulation
The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a DetNet IP flow as an The basic encapsulation approach is to treat a DetNet IP flow as an
app-flow from the DetNet MPLS perspective. The corresponding example app-flow from the DetNet MPLS perspective. The corresponding example
DetNet Sub-Network format is shown in Figure 3. DetNet Sub-Network format is shown in Figure 3.
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
Per Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane Per Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], the DetNet MPLS data plane
uses a single S-Label to support a single app flow. DetNet IP Flow uses a single S-Label to support a single app flow. DetNet IP Flow
Identification Procedures in Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] Identification Procedures in Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
states that a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next states that a single DetNet flow is identified based on IP, and next
level protocol, header information. Section 4.4. (Aggregation level protocol, header information. Section 4.4. (Aggregation
Considerations) of [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] defines the ways in which Considerations) of [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] defines the ways in which
aggregation is supported through the use of prefixes, wildcards, aggregation is supported through the use of prefixes, wildcards,
lists, and port ranges. Collectively, this results in the fairly lists, and port ranges. Collectively, this results in the fairly
straightforward procedures defined in this section. straightforward procedures defined in the next section.
As shown in Figure 2, DetNet relay nodes are responsible for the As shown in Figure 2, DetNet relay nodes are responsible for the
mapping of a DetNet flow, at the service sub-layer, from the IP to mapping of a DetNet flow, at the service sub-layer, from the IP to
MPLS DetNet data planes and back again. Their related DetNet IP over MPLS DetNet data planes and back again. Their related DetNet IP over
DetNet MPLS data plane operation is comprised of two sets of DetNet MPLS data plane operation is comprised of two sets of
procedures: the mapping of flow identifiers, and ensuring proper procedures: the mapping of flow identifiers, and ensuring proper
traffic treatment. traffic treatment.
Mapping of IP to DetNet MPLS is similar for DetNet IP flows and IP Mapping of IP to DetNet MPLS is similar for DetNet IP flows and IP
flows. The six-tuple of IP is mapped to the S-Label in both cases. flows. The six-tuple of IP is mapped to the S-Label in both cases.
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
processing according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. processing according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
provision both flow identification information and the flow specific provision both flow identification information and the flow specific
resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet
each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and
individual flows. individual flows.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Generals security considerations for DetNet are described in detail General security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in
in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP security [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP security
considerations equally apply to this document and are described in considerations equally apply to this document and are described in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip].
Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to
provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are
primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates
and bounded end-to-end delivery latency. and bounded end-to-end delivery latency.
The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain The primary considerations for the data plane are to maintain
integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected
through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For
example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec example, encryption may be used, such as that provided by IPSec
[RFC4301] for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec [RFC4301] for IP flows and/or by an underlying sub-net using MACSec
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows. [IEEE802.1AE-2018] for IP over Ethernet (Layer-2) flows.
From a data plane perspective this document does not add or modify From a data plane perspective this document does not add or modify
any header information. any header information.
skipping to change at page 11, line 27 skipping to change at page 11, line 21
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Janos Farkas contributed substantially to the content of this Janos Farkas contributed substantially to the content of this
document. document.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative references 11.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet- Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07
ip-05 (work in progress), February 2020. (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05 (work in progress), February detnet-mpls-11 (work in progress), August 2020.
2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
11.2. Informative references 11.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet- Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-
data-plane-framework-04 (work in progress), February 2020. data-plane-framework-06 (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
security-09 (work in progress), March 2020. security-11 (work in progress), August 2020.
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] [IEEE802.1AE-2018]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
Security (MACsec)", 2018, Security (MACsec)", 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>. December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 37 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/