Route conflict detected : Static routes & Pepvpn advertising route

Hi guys,

We have a Cisco router at the HQ and several remote sites with Cisco routers. Remote sites are connected to the direction via local radio loop, no NAT. The routing is static.

We replaced the Cisco router at HQ with a 580 balance, and connected the local radio loop on a LAN port to define static roads. On some remote sites we have replaced the Cisco router with a peplink and added an internet connection to mount a PEPVPN tunnel with the 580 scale.

The problem currently is that when the tunnel is established we have an IP address conflict that means that when the local radio loop is cut, the traffic is not automatically switched into the tunnel. It first removes the static road in the scales 580 so that the tunnel works.

The complete replacement of the Cisco routers of the remote sites is under discussion, the question of the auto rocking must be effective to convince the client.

Is there a way to manage this issue?

Thank you

  1. Move the radio links to the WAN of the Peplinks (IP forwarding not NAT) and configure BGP for dynamic routing.
  2. Add internet links to the central site.
  3. When you migrate a remote site from CISCO to Peplink, the radio links and internet links are on the WAN of the remote Peplink so you can use SpeedFusion for Hot Failover.

Hi @MartinLangmaid

Thank for your answer. Sorry for my late reply.

  1. The radio links is connected to the WAN of the remote Peplinks devices. I can’t configured BGP with others router (Cisco) than Peplink because they are too much and is not an option for the customer. Can we configure Dynamic routing on LAN side of the Balance 580 and WAN side of remote Peplink.

  2. We have 3 internet links on the central site.

  3. That’s what we did with the radio links. But because the radio link is on lan port at the HQ, we can only established SpeedFusion with the added Internet Link.

Thank you