Static Routes Fail

pr4499

We have a growing network with one core router and 4 branches that connect via Open VPN to the core. All of the networks except 1 are on the 10. range, but the last one is on the 192. range until we can get it changed over to the 10. range. So for now we have implemented static routes so that anyone in the 10. range can find the 192. range. And this has been working very well…up until recently. After much troubleshooting we found that a problem that keeps cropping up is that the static routes will just fail. And the solution is to just disable and then enable the static route. This usually fixes it, although if it doesn't, then we just delete the route and re add it. Why is this happening and what can we do to prevent it? They are all running the same version (it's the version just before the current one that just came out).

johnpoz

without some more details - impossible to guess even what your issue is. If the route is there, then the route is there - there should not be any reason to have to re-enable it.

pr4499

Yep, sounds strange, but I have had this issue twice now. The first time it took me quite a while to figure out what it was. I had to delete the route and then re-add it. The second time I found the issue I just disabled the route and then re-enabled it, and that worked fine. Is this a bug?

Derelict

Is this a bug?

Probably not. What is in the routing table when it is working and when it is not?

Diagnostics > Routes

pr4499

It just happened again. Here are the before and after screenshots. I just had to disable and re enable the static route to Nichols.

![2017-03-13 09_22_25-.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_22_25-.png)
![2017-03-13 09_22_25-.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_22_25-.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_22_55-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_22_55-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_22_55-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_22_55-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_23_20-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_23_20-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_23_20-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_23_20-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_23_38-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_23_38-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png)
![2017-03-13 09_23_38-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_23_38-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_24_27-192.168.0.254.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_24_27-192.168.0.254.png)
![2017-03-13 09_24_27-192.168.0.254.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_24_27-192.168.0.254.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_25_02-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Gateways.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_25_02-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Gateways.png)
![2017-03-13 09_25_02-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Gateways.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_25_02-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Gateways.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_25_28-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Static Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_25_28-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Static Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_25_28-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Static Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_25_28-Pershing.lit.int - System_ Routing_ Static Routes.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_26_56-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_26_56-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png)
![2017-03-13 09_26_56-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_26_56-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ ARP Table.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_27_17-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_17-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_27_17-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_17-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_27_34-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_34-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_27_34-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_34-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb)
![2017-03-13 09_27_50-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_50-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png)
![2017-03-13 09_27_50-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/2017-03-13 09_27_50-Pershing.lit.int - Diagnostics_ Routes.png_thumb)

johnpoz

Your first page shows that link to 192.168.0/24 is via bge0, your next posts shows its out your vpn connection ovpnc1

So if you need to go out ovpnc1 to get there, and you have it on your bge0 which looks to have a 10.20.61/24 network on it - then yeah its not going to work.

differentroutes.png_thumb