Site Client need to communicate to each other

[jon@prosystems.com]

Thank you looking at the config...

Each remote site has routes for each other network.

Such as this for 192.168.5.0

172.16.0.1 172.16.0.6
172.16.0.6 tun0
192.168.5.0 eth4
192.168.3.0 172.16.0.6
192.168.2.0 172.16.0.6
192.168.1.0 172.16.0.6

I did check the VPN route traffic through the bridge under packet filter at one time, but I have unchecked that now.

Also, I did reboot each untangle box but I did the remote sites first.

And, I test this by going to the remote Untangle and try to PING the other remote Untangle box and try tracert to other remote Untangle boxes from there too. The tracert will get 172.16.0.1 and die after that.

I will try rebooting the server one and let it come back up and then the remote sites one at a time.

[jon@prosystems.com]

I did notice each remote box is a little different in routing table:

The 172.16.0.6 address will be different on each site like 172.16.0.10 or .08

But all have 172.16.0.1 with netmask of 32 as well as the 0.6 / 0.8 / 0.10 with a netmask of 32

172.16.0.1 32 172.16.0.6
172.16.0.6 32 tun0
192.168.5.0 24 eth4
192.168.3.0 24 172.16.0.6
192.168.2.0 24 172.16.0.6
192.168.1.0 24 172.16.0.6

[jon@prosystems.com]

Each remote site has a 172.16.0.1

Is it getting confused routing the packets from 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.0.6 to tun0 to 172.16.0.10 to 172.16.0.1?

In other words, is it a problem each remote site has a 172.16.0.1?

[donhwyo]

Did you try bypassing that traffic?

Don

[jcoffin]

Originally Posted by jon@prosystems.com

Thank you looking at the config...

Each remote site has routes for each other network.

Such as this for 192.168.5.0

172.16.0.1 172.16.0.6
172.16.0.6 tun0
192.168.5.0 eth4
192.168.3.0 172.16.0.6
192.168.2.0 172.16.0.6
192.168.1.0 172.16.0.6

I did check the VPN route traffic through the bridge under packet filter at one time, but I have unchecked that now.

I will try rebooting the server one and let it come back up and then the remote sites one at a time.

"Route VPN traffic that would go through the Bridge" should be unchecked.

Do you have a route for 172.16.0.0 24 (255.255.255.0) 172.16.0.34 ?

[jcoffin]

Originally Posted by jon@prosystems.com

Each remote site has a 172.16.0.1

Is it getting confused routing the packets from 172.16.0.1 to 172.16.0.6 to tun0 to 172.16.0.10 to 172.16.0.1?

In other words, is it a problem each remote site has a 172.16.0.1?

172.16.0.1 is the VPN server site so each should have address.