asked on

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

naderz

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

David Blair

ASKER

I understand your point, but making that change would prevent both sites B and C from accessing 10. networks at site A.

naderz

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.

David Blair

ASKER

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.

SOLUTION

naderz

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

David Blair

ASKER

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

SOLUTION

David Blair

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

David Blair

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

David Blair

ASKER

Found the solution on Cisco's website, of all places!