Solved

Remote Access VPN - Odd Routing Issue

Posted on 2012-12-20
8
451 Views
Last Modified: 2012-12-26
I have a single user having an issue connecting from their house via the Cisco VPN Client to our corporate network which has an ASA 5510 head end.

Her local subnet is 192.168.1.0/24 and she connects fine and obtains an IP address in the address block reserved for remote access clients, however there is no communication over the link though TX and RX show data moving.

If I do a traceroute from her computer to the corporate network, I see real oddities (attached). I also attached her routing table which looks good.

The only gotcha I can think of, though it shouldn't make a difference to my knowledge, is that we also have a site-to-site VPN tunnel that connects to a 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, but since remote access clients grab from their own DHCP pool, I don't think this should matter?

Any ideas on this?
traceroute.PNG
routing-table.PNG
0
Comment
Question by:Tercestisi
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 5
  • 2
8 Comments
 
LVL 70

Expert Comment

by:Qlemo
ID: 38710469
Is the 172.30.11.x network the one used for 192.168.1.0 in the site-2-site connection? And what is 10.141.78.1?
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:djcanter
ID: 38710570
First hop should be 10.1.201.1 not 192.168.1.1.  Can you adjust the metric for the routed vpn networks to be less than the default route?
0
 

Author Comment

by:Tercestisi
ID: 38710600
That's what I'm wondering Qlemo... none of those networks are used anywhere within our corporate network that does span about 50 subnets. Very odd...

Good idea djcanter, though the routing table shows which hop to contact for that route... that should take precedence over a metic.
0
Is your NGFW recommended by NSS Labs?

Ours is! NSS Labs Next Generation Firewall Test gives the WatchGuard Firebox M4600 a "Recommended" rating! Curious where your NGFW landed on the  Security Value Map? See the map and download the full report today!

 
LVL 10

Accepted Solution

by:
djcanter earned 500 total points
ID: 38710611
Your traffic egressing the 192.168.1.1 gateway is hopping on the ISPs private routed network. Clearly they shouldnt allow this....
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:djcanter
ID: 38710672
Routing table should look like below with tunnel routes lower metric than default gateway:
Other sites have reported enabling NAT-T may resolve this

Active Routes:
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0      192.168.1.1    192.168.1.10       20
        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
      192.168.1.0    255.255.255.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
     192.168.1.10  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       20
    192.168.1.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
Default Gateway:       192.168.1.1
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:


Active Routes:
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0      192.168.1.1    192.168.1.10       20
         10.1.0.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
         10.2.0.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
     65.216.9.229  255.255.255.255      192.168.1.1    192.168.1.10       1
        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
      172.20.10.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
     172.20.10.62  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       20
      172.20.11.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.21.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.31.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.50.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.51.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.60.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.61.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.70.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.71.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.81.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
      172.20.91.0    255.255.255.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
   172.20.255.255  255.255.255.255     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       20
      192.168.1.0    255.255.255.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
      192.168.1.1  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
     192.168.1.10  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       20
    192.168.1.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       20
        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       20
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     172.20.10.62    172.20.10.62       1
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.1.10    192.168.1.10       1
Default Gateway:       192.168.1.1
0
 
LVL 10

Assisted Solution

by:djcanter
djcanter earned 500 total points
ID: 38710702
Try this:
https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2084929

Workaround 2, changing metric of wired/wireless adapter not vpn client.
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:djcanter
ID: 38721391
Were you able to get issue resolved by adjusting route metric ?
If so, please close question as answered and award points.
0
 

Author Closing Comment

by:Tercestisi
ID: 38721494
Issue not resolved as I didn't hear back from user, and don't expect to unless the next big snow storm when they need to work from home again; awarded points anyhow.
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: Site Down Detector

Helpful to verify reports of your own downtime, or to double check a downed website you are trying to access.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Many of the companies I’ve worked with have embraced cloud solutions due to their desire to “get out of the datacenter business.” The ability to achieve better security and availability, and the speed with which they are able to deploy, is far grea…
When speed and performance are vital to revenue, companies must have complete confidence in their cloud environment.
Windows 10 is mostly good. However the one thing that annoys me is how many clicks you have to do to dial a VPN connection. You have to go to settings from the start menu, (2 clicks), Network and Internet (1 click), Click VPN (another click) then fi…
As a trusted technology advisor to your customers you are likely getting the daily question of, ‘should I put this in the cloud?’ As customer demands for cloud services increases, companies will see a shift from traditional buying patterns to new…

687 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question