First off, I like to recommend placing the routes on the router, therefore it is identify. The one time you actually would put routes on a server is you probably have a number of community interface playing cards. Even then, it nonetheless should not be vital – particularly if they’ve assigned addresses.
Secondly, subnets don’t overlap in the way in which you assume. Subnets 192.168.0.8/29 & 192.168.0.16/29 are smaller and separate networks inside large community 192.168.0.0/24.
Your consumer community is inside your server community, which might’t occur as a result of each networks will primarily struggle over addresses. It simply would not work that manner.
Thirdly, your first default route on the server says any visitors can go to the router interface linked to this server, which can be despatched out to the router. However the router will not know the place to ship that visitors as soon as it receives it and can find yourself dropping it, until there is a specified route on the router. Your different route ought to have the 16 modified to 24 or maybe eliminated altogether.
Questions:
Why is not the response despatched instantly from the server to the consumer, although the consumer’s community (192.168.0.0/24) is included within the server’s community (192.168.1.0/16)?
See above.
Including a routing rule 192.168.0.0/24 by way of 192.168.1.254 on the server permits the response to be despatched to the consumer by means of the router. Is that this the right method?
Maybe. See above.
Would altering the server’s community configuration to 192.168.1.10/24 (as an alternative of /16) clear up the problem? I assume this may create a default routing rule 192.168.1.0/24 by way of 192.168.1.10 as an alternative of 192.168.0.0/16 by way of 192.168.1.10, and the default route 0.0.0.0/0 by way of 192.168.1.254 would then correctly redirect the response to the router and thus to the consumer.
Sure, it might clear up a problem. You are heading in the right direction.