vMX azure route problem

Abechara
Here to help

vMX azure route problem

hello, 

 

i have  an environnent auto vpn between meraki mx, i added vMX on Azure cloud i followed the steps here 

 

https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/MX_Installation_Guides/vMX_Setup_Guide_for_Microsoft_Azure

 

i configured all, vMX(HUB) can ping inside azure subnets but the users behind another Mx (HUB) cannot reach the Azure subnets, can reach only internal vMX ip 192.168.128.1/24

 

azure vnet is 10.1.0.0/20

azure subnets 10.1.1.0/24

                         10.1.2.0/24 

 

i created route table as mentioned in meraki documentation but still same problem cannot reach azure behind mx and i am sure it is a routing problem

 

 

7 Replies 7
alemabrahao
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Ensure that the Network Security Groups and any Azure firewalls are configured to allow traffic between the subnets and from the on-premises network.

I am not a Cisco Meraki employee. My suggestions are based on documentation of Meraki best practices and day-to-day experience.

Please, if this post was useful, leave your kudos and mark it as solved.
Abechara
Here to help

firewall allow all and nsg also 

GreenMan
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

A bit of guesswork to help further without Dashboard visibility - did you raise a case with Meraki Support?

Abechara
Here to help

no i am trying the solve it i didnt raise it with meraki support as it may be from azure

PhilipDAth
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Do the Azure routes appear in the Meraki routing table?

PhilipDAth_0-1734635039265.png

 

If not, make sure you add them under Site-to-Site VPN, under VPN Settings, Local Networks.

PhilipDAth_1-1734635092648.png

PhilipDAth_2-1734635130649.png

 

Abechara
Here to help

no and that is the problem how can they appear? we cannot add them manually in site to site

Abechara
Here to help

what i did i used the same subnet in azure in the internal ip of vMX and i did static route so it overlaps but it worked

Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.