Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are a network 192.168.0.0/24 and a different network on a second location with 192.168.50.0/24 on both networks are a router with 192.168.x.1 who route the traffic.

Now i install a new Router with 192.168.0.2 and connect with ipsec to 192.168.50.1, i can route from one net to another, but only if i add 192.168.0.2 as gateway for the network. Now i add a route from 192.168.0.1 over to 192.168.0.2 to 192.168.50.1 and it works i can ping hosts from 192.168.0.x to the 192.168.50.x but not in the other direction. So if i test the route from 192.168.50.x over 192.168.50.1 to 192.168.0.2 over 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.x then i can't ping the Host. What can i do that it works?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Update After discussing this in chat, we determined the problem was handling the static routes between 10.1.1.2. and 10.1.1.1. There aren't any hosts connected to 10.1.1.2, but if there were, there would be no way to route traffic to 10.1.1.0 and get that traffic to both groups of hosts. Even with no hosts, getting to the router itself (for admin purposes) at 10.1.1.2 puts you in a static loop with 10.1.1.1.

Th solution is to subnet out the two routers, and then statically route the two subnets properly, thereby avoiding any conflicts in routing.

share|improve this answer
    
Hey John, thanks for your answer. Yes we use static route and i don't set a route from 192.168.0.2 to 192.168.0.1 because i don't know what route i should set. If i set route add 192.168.0.0 net mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.1 i can access my 192.168.0.2 –  kockiren Aug 23 '12 at 14:31
    
Well, you shouldn't need a route from 192.168.0.2 to 192.168.0.1, as they're on the same network, but you should have one from 192.168.50.0 to the 192.168.0.0 network. It sounds like the only connection there is from 192.168.50.1 to 192.168.0.2 - is there a static route set at the 192.168.50.1 router for the 192.168.0.0 network? –  John K Aug 23 '12 at 14:37
    
There are no routes because it is set over the ipsec-tunnel. I don't need any routes in this tunnel. I think. If i ping devices who set 192.168.0.2 as gateway then it works. –  kockiren Aug 23 '12 at 14:53
    
Ahh ok, in that case, try setting a default route on 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.0.2. I think that would look like "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2" –  John K Aug 23 '12 at 14:56
    
Okay but i cant set a default route because the default traffic should go over the WAN Gateway of 192.168.0.1 –  kockiren Aug 23 '12 at 14:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.