# Routing problems...



## mlager (Nov 26, 2011)

I've got three locations that I'm attempting to connect together via IPsec VPN... I am attempting to make one of the locations the "main hub". Here is what it looks like today:

Location A - Main Hub - 172.16.2.1
Location B - 172.16.1.1
Location C - 172.16 10.1

I've established VPN tunnels between connecting Location A and Location B together, and Location A and Location C together. I can ping Location B from Location A and vice versa, and can ping Location C from Location A and vice versa.

Now I want to be able to ping Llocation C from Location B by routing the traffic through Location A... From Location B, I can ping Location A, so I figured I could add a route like this:


```
route add -net 172.16.10.0/24 172.16.2.1
```
But after adding this, I cant ping 172.16.10.1 from Llocation B. Since I can ping 172.16.2.1, and 172.16.2.1 can ping 172.16.10.1, I thought this route would let me ping 172.16.10.1 from 172.16.1.1 via 172.16.2.1.

I hope that made some sense, basically I don't want to have to set up tunnels back and fourth between each network, I'd rather just set up a tunnel from each remote site to the central hub for which the networks talk together through.

Any advice would be great.


----------



## wblock@ (Nov 26, 2011)

Do you have
/etc/rc.conf

```
gateway_enable="YES"
```


----------



## mlager (Nov 26, 2011)

Yes, each of the end points also do NAT via PF so they are all gateway enabled. I know my issue isn't a fireballing issue as I have tested disabling it at each endpoint with no success. I'm missing something. 

Am I wrong in thinking that if location a has connectivity to location c, then I should be able to connect to location c from location b through location a?


----------



## bbzz (Nov 27, 2011)

`# route add -net 172.16.10.0/24 172.16.2.1` 
should be added on B (not A; I wasn't sure where you added it).

Also,
`# route add -net 172.16.1.0/24 172.16.2.1`
should be added on C. You shouldn't change routing table on A to ping those two networks (but you might if you have anything "behind" them).


----------



## mlager (Nov 27, 2011)

That's what I forgot, I created the route on 172.16.1.1 but didn't created the route on 172.16.10.1... Once I added the route on C, everything fell into place.

Thanks do much, this is what's so amazing about the forums here... Tons of smart people, no judgement... Thanks again for everyone's input.


----------



## SirDice (Nov 28, 2011)

mlager said:
			
		

> That's what I forgot, I created the route on 172.16.1.1 but didn't created the route on 172.16.10.1... Once I added the route on C, everything fell into place.


You can use [cmd=]netstat -rn[/cmd] to verify your routing tables.


----------

