From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352DBC282DD for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DEA20838 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:00:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578682852; bh=jFph1sWi6/+Sg6SeLwtuu+O9LnerVF80kCg8oNOgx14=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=WQVjyhMyOriPuGYmmIwsshEEF6wvq/Q875wuBcWa0qageps0tClNPpAjWLres4sg8 7OZNYcgq15XehVLKWv1WZKhJQXZZj2as/qWodg1mS5+nk1lLu2Qnr40+y2hvMo58gT 3ZFY32qPLLR+R12Whs/StU6Ruw/YC+RxjxhUDPJs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728722AbgAJTAv (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:00:51 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58590 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728719AbgAJTAv (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:00:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [213.57.247.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C3AF205F4; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:00:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578682850; bh=jFph1sWi6/+Sg6SeLwtuu+O9LnerVF80kCg8oNOgx14=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fxEbMOJkKw5mp6cbVOfDoal5eL+AlhQJK+E0XchdMbDv3m/EKtKsTjywOlXFPWB50 gA8MWVLT5wvV2bduwaVaoLhPGudT6LLNVK+ARq3rEdCuKKNIykI9d6tLeSvJNa2Ayf XWjL6kT3d3NYQAUzigNCQ6D3mOuUKEjpNsa14Tzw= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:00:44 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky To: wangqi <3100102071@zju.edu.cn> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Discussion] can ROCE protocol work with NAT (Network Address Translation)? Message-ID: <20200110190044.GC6871@unreal> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 06:51:39PM +0800, wangqi wrote: > Dear experts, > >     Because of a project, we need to use ROCE to send data from > > region A to region B. A and B are not in a same LAN, and it will > > go through NAT (Network Address Translation). However, we found > > that we can't send data successfully. We do some investigations > > and find that in an INTEL ppt, it says because "ICRC doesn't allow > > IP header modifications", ROCE protocol can't work with NAT > > while iWARP can work with NAT. We want to ask a few questions. > > 1. Can ROCE protocol work with NAT? Is the INTEL ppt right? I have no idea to which "INTEL ppt" you are referring, but RoCEv2 is an extension of RoCEv1 to support routing over different subnets. Instead of IB GRH field in RoCEv1 packets, RoCEv2 uses IP and UDP headers. > > 2. Is there any method that we can use to make ROCE work with > > NAT? For example, can we modify or remove the ICRC part in the > > ROCE protocol? Is it a good idea?a Use proper hardware that supports RoCEv2. > > Best wishes, > > Qi > >