<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic split tunnel problem in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861993#M974086</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to enable split tunnelling but what appears to happen at the moment is that i can access the vpn. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;at that point i still have external internet access. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When i actually connect to the server then i lose internet access.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i've attached my config file to see if someone can spot what is probably an obvious mistake. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;suzanne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>techsitc10</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T11:19:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>split tunnel problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861993#M974086</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to enable split tunnelling but what appears to happen at the moment is that i can access the vpn. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;at that point i still have external internet access. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When i actually connect to the server then i lose internet access.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i've attached my config file to see if someone can spot what is probably an obvious mistake. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;suzanne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861993#M974086</guid>
      <dc:creator>techsitc10</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T11:19:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: split tunnel problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861994#M974087</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think this isn't a split tunnel problem. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The issue is I can bring up a webpage but not access remote desktop or any other server services. When I look at the vpn stats on the remote connection there are none received although plenty are being sent.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Suzanne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:46:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861994#M974087</guid>
      <dc:creator>techsitc10</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-02T15:46:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: split tunnel problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861995#M974088</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nonat permit ip &lt;LOCAL.NETWORK&gt; &lt;VPN.CLIENT.NETWORK&gt; &lt;/VPN.CLIENT.NETWORK&gt;&lt;/LOCAL.NETWORK&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One other thing I noticed is that the vpn pool is part of the inside network. It is not advised to have this configuration. The vpn pool should have a completely different subnet. For example...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip local pool george4vpn 192.168.20.200-192.168.20.230&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list nonat permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, if you want split tunnel then acl 120 should read...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 120 permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps. Please rate helpful posts.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861995#M974088</guid>
      <dc:creator>acomiskey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-02T15:49:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: split tunnel problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861996#M974089</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the help, and my apologies for taking so long to say thank you. It was all resolved last week. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I ask why you say the vpn pool should be on a completely different subnet? It works but I'm curious as to why this would be necessary. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Suzanne&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:50:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861996#M974089</guid>
      <dc:creator>techsitc10</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-09T08:50:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: split tunnel problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861997#M974090</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Suzanne, the pool needs to be unique so the firewall knows were to route the packets, you cannot have two of the identical subnets in existance within a network ~ bad things will happen. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:12:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/split-tunnel-problem/m-p/861997#M974090</guid>
      <dc:creator>whisperwind</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-09T12:12:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

