Hi,
To my understanding this should be no problem.
The more specific route should be chosen.
Take this example from my home ASA
interface Vlan1
description LAN
nameif LAN
security-level 100
ip address 10.0.10.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan10
description WAN
nameif WAN
security-level 0
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.248
!
interface Vlan20
no forward interface Vlan1
nameif WLAN
security-level 99
ip address 10.0.255.1 255.255.255.0
route WAN 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 y.y.y.y 1
route WLAN 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.255.1.2 1
route LAN 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.10.1 1
route LAN 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.10.1 1
For examples sake:
- WLAN has the route for the whole 10.0.0.0/8
- LAN has routes for 2 networks
PACKET-TRACER ROUTE-LOOKUP TEST
First test has a destination IP address belonging to one of the LAN networks. Traffic gets forwarded through LAN interface.
ASA(config)# packet-tracer input LAN tcp 10.0.0.10 1234 10.0.0.1 80
Phase: 1
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 LAN
Second test has a destination IP address that doesnt have any other route than the 10.0.0.0/8 and therefore gets forwarded through the WLAN interface.
ASA(config)# packet-tracer input LAN tcp 10.0.0.10 1234 10.0.2.1 80
Phase: 1
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 WLAN
I imagine in the case of VPN Pool it might actually show to the ASA as a directly connected network which furthermore overrides Static routing.
- Jouni