I have an issue where a client is using the Cisco VPN client from behind a firewall. The client is on a 10.0.0.0/8 subnet, and the devices that they are trying to access are on a 10.2.128.0/24 subnet. Because the Clinet software only adds a 0.0.0.0 route to the assigned address, there is no connectivity.
Is there any way around this, without using split_tunneling?
If you are not using split tunnel you would still loose connectivity to your local subnet since the vpn client is instructed to tunnel everything. The possible split tunnel policy that might help you is excluding the local network on the remote site, however on your case it will be hard since the /8 range covers the remote network.
Even though the client is instructed to tunnel everything, it apears thet the routing table overrides this, i.e because there is a local route to the 10.0.0.0/8 subnet, traffic which should go through the tunnel to the 10.2.128.0/24 subnet does not. Is this norma,l behaviour, or a bug with the client/ASA (both on latest level code).
Table of ContentsIntroductionVersion HistoryPossible Future
UpdatesDocuments PurposeNAT Operation in ASA 8.3+ SectionsRule Types
Network Object NATTwice NAT / Manual NATRule Types used per SectionNAT
Types used with Twice NAT / Manual NAT and Network Obje...
Table of Contents Introduction:This document describes details on how
NAT-T works. Background: ESP encrypts all critical information,
encapsulating the entire inner TCP/UDP datagram within an ESP header.
ESP is an IP protocol in the same sense that TCP an...