1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RV042 VPN problems with client access

Discussion in 'Cisco Small Business Routers and VPN Solutions' started by sentinel80, Sep 24, 2006.

  1. sentinel80

    sentinel80 LI Guru Member

    Hi,

    I have a simple setup with RV042.

    I use only 1 WAN interface, and the lan connects to a switch port of another router.

    For the ip layout I use 192.168.32.0/255.255.255.0

    RV042 - 192.168.32.99
    Other router - 192.168.32.100

    Thru the other router I have to reach another subnet (172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0).
    Note: I can reach this subnet from a computer at 32.0 zone with the corresponding route added.

    I set up vpn client access, pptp server (for testing).

    With pptp server, after connected I can ping 192.168.32.99, .32.100, and a couple of computers in 32.0 subnet, but no 172.16.0.0 subnet (I have the corresponding advanced routing entry).

    When I use quickvpn client (which is a must later because of ipsec), the only address I can ping is .32.99 (lan1 ip of rv042).

    Router firmware is 1.3.7.10
    Quickvpn version is 1.0.0.40


    Anyone has any idea why rv042 is driving me crazy ? :frown:
     
  2. Toxic

    Toxic Administrator Staff Member

    have you setup the other subnet in the network.htm page under LAN settings?
     
  3. sentinel80

    sentinel80 LI Guru Member

    Unfortunately yes, it's under multiple subnets.

    And the other question is, what's the difference from router side between quickvpn and pptp ?

    With quickvpn i cannot even ping hosts in the same subnet as the local side (192.168.32.0/255.255.255.0).
     
  4. Toxic

    Toxic Administrator Staff Member

    you should be able to ping the clients on the same LAN IP as the Router. you must have a configuration problem with the clients. are their any firewalls blocking the incomming ping requests on the clients your trying to ping.

    as to the difference have a looksee here:

    http://www.multitech.com/DOCUMENTS/Tutorials/applications/6016.asp
     
  5. sentinel80

    sentinel80 LI Guru Member

    The client i'm testing with is directly connected, no nat, no firewalls, even xp internal firewall is disabled. The tunnel is built up in both cases (quickvpn and pptp), but the way they work are different.

    In the meantime I found a big difference between using pptp and ipsec.

    Quickvpn client doesn't put any entries in the route table.

    When using pptp, I have the entries in my routing table for directing traffic to the remote local net.

    I find it a bit weird.
     
  6. joe660

    joe660 LI Guru Member

    The above link reflects Winders default PPTP client settings. The Windows XP builtin PPTP client offers an option to not route all traffic over the PPTP VPN. If you click on the properties of a PPTP connection, go to the networking tab, select the TCP/IP entry and then click the properties button, then click the 'advanced' button on that window. The General tab has a tick box for 'use default GW on remote network'. If you unselect it, traffic not destined for the PPTP subnet does not go over PPTP.

    I'm not sure whether PPTP clients configured not to use the remote router as the default GW get wind of the private subnets accessible from the PPTP server other than that of the LAN. If they don't they won't be able to see them.
     
  7. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Network Guru Member

    I'm still trying to picture the below setup. So you're on a network that has an existing router, this router with a LAN interface of 192.168.32.100
    And you have the RV0 behind this router...basically uplinking the RV0 using just its LAN port? So you're pretty much just using it as a switch?

     
  8. sentinel80

    sentinel80 LI Guru Member

    No-no, might be that I explained it wrong.

    The RV042 has a WAN link with public ip address thru a leased line.

    It's LAN interface has 192.168.32.99 address, and the _other_ router has a lan interface of .32.100

    It's a creepy setup, but I have to work with this.
     

Share This Page