Trouble passing traffic between remote Site to Site VPN subnets ASA 5505 5520

We have an ASA 5520 at Site A with Site to Site VPN tunnels to  Site B and Site C.  While traffic can move between Sites A and B, and Sites A and C, no traffic may pass between Sites B and C.

 It should be noted that numerous 10.x.x.x subnets exist elsewhere at Site A (behind the 172.18.x.x LAN) with which Sites B and C can (and must) freely communicate.

SITE A (LAN: 172.18.4.x\24  WAN: 12.231.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip 12.192.x.x 255.255.255.0 any
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip 64.x.x.x 255.255.255.240 any
access-list outside_access_in extended permit icmp any any
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip any 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip any 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0

SITE B (LAN: 10.6.0.0/16  WAN: 64.x.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip host 12.231.x.x any
access-list outside_access_in extended permit icmp any any
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0

SITE C (LAN: 10.10.0.0/16  WAN: 12.192.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip host 12.231.x.x any
access-list outside_access_in extended permit icmp any any
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0
access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0

Open in new window

LVL 1
David BlairAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
David BlairConnect With a Mentor Author Commented:
Found the answer.  It apparently WAS necessary to have the subnet-specific crypto statements, but it was ALSO necessary to have this line in the config:

same-security-traffic permit intra-interface

Thanks for your help!
0
 
naderzCommented:
I see one potential issue: The ACLs for VPN (if I am reading your config correctly) don't match:


SITE B (LAN: 10.6.0.0/16  WAN: 64.x.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0


SITE C (LAN: 10.10.0.0/16  WAN: 12.192.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0


For VPN tunnel they have to match exactly (provided being mirror of each other)

Possible solution:

SITE B (LAN: 10.6.0.0/16  WAN: 64.x.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0


SITE C (LAN: 10.10.0.0/16  WAN: 12.192.x.x)
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
0
 
David BlairAuthor Commented:
I understand your point, but making that change would prevent both sites B and C from accessing 10. networks at site A.
0
Increase Security & Decrease Risk with NSPM Tools

Analyst firm, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) reveals significant benefits to enterprises when using Network Security Policy Management (NSPM) solutions, while organizations without, experienced issues including non standard security policies and failed cloud migrations

 
naderzCommented:
Understood. You would then need to have multiple lines. Do include the 10.0.0.0/8 as well. But, do have the specific routes between B and C.

Do 10.6.0.0/16 and 10.10.0.0/16 exist on Site A behind the 172.18.4.x? If yes, that would make things challenging! If they do exist in Site A, then one way would be to NAT them.
0
 
David BlairAuthor Commented:
So just to clarify then, even though traffic from 10.6.0.0 to 10.10.0.0 would be covered by:

access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0

You're suggesting I add lines like this:

access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.0.0.0

to the  cryptomaps (and the same in reverse)?

To answer your question, on the other side of 172.18.4.0 there are only 10.0.x.x, 10.1.x.x, 10.2.x.x, 10.3.x.x, 10.5.x.x, and 10.8.x.x at Site A.  Too many, in my opinion to try and add lines for each.
0
 
naderzConnect With a Mentor Commented:
To establish the IPSec tunnel the ACLs for hte interesting traffic on each end need to match exactly. So, I would try to add those specific ACLs.

Also, have you verified that routing and other ACLs are fine. Would you please post results of "show run access-group" and "show ip route"?
0
 
David BlairAuthor Commented:
Still no luck, unfortunately.  Here are the new crypto statements and results of the commands you requested:

SITE A
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap_1 extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0

SITE B
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0

SITE C
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0
access-list outside_cryptomap extended permit ip 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0


SITE A - sh route
C    172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0 is directly connected, inside
C    127.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 is directly connected, _internal_loopback
S    10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.231.x.x, outside
S    10.8.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 172.18.4.1, inside
S    10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 172.18.4.1, inside
S    10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 172.18.4.1, inside
S    10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 172.18.4.1, inside
S    10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.231.x.x, outside
S    10.5.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 172.18.4.1, inside
C    12.231.x.x 255.255.255.192 is directly connected, outside
S*   0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [1/0] via 12.231.x.x, outside

SITE B - sh route
C    64.x.x.x 255.255.255.240 is directly connected, outside
S    172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside
S    10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside
S    10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside
S    10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside
S    10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside
C    10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 is directly connected, inside
S*   0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [1/0] via 64.x.x.x, outside

SITE C - sh route
S    172.18.4.0 255.255.255.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside
C    127.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 is directly connected, _internal_loopback
C    10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 is directly connected, inside
S    10.2.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside
S    10.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside
S    10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside
S    10.6.0.0 255.255.0.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside
C    12.192.x.x 255.255.255.0 is directly connected, outside
S*   0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [1/0] via 12.192.x.x, outside


SITE A - show run access-group
access-group outside_access_in in interface outside

SITE B - show run access-group
access-group outside_access_in in interface outside

SITE C - show run access-group
access-group outside_access_in in interface outside

Open in new window

0
 
David BlairConnect With a Mentor Author Commented:
Point of clarification on the above....  As mentioned in the original question there are several 10.x.x.x subnets at Site A, and technically there should be statements for 10.5.0.0 and 10.8.0.0.  For testing I just did the three subnets that are most critical: 10.0.0.0/16, 10.1.0.0/16, and 10.2.0.0/16.
0
 
David BlairAuthor Commented:
Found the solution on Cisco's website, of all places!
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.