Hello Julian, : > It seems that unless a route to the gateway IP exists in the main routing : > table, I cannot add a route through the gateway IP, even if there is a : > route to the destination in the ancillary routing table. : : Because when we create a route we need to know the right scope to : assign to the new nexthop. Once it is known we don't need the route to : the gateway (and you can delete it). You can see that there is such : comment in the code: Where in the code? : It is not necessary, but requires a bit of thinking : : IMO, this check is necessary because without seeing the : route to the gateway we can not know whether this gateway is: I still don't understand....the nexthop for the new route already exists in the table I have specified. Why couldn't we see the route to the gateway in the specified table? : - local IP (and the resulting route should be device-only, GW IP : is ignored) : : - unicast IP (and the resulting route should be via device and GW IP) I am using the parameter "via" in the problematic route statement. Doesn't that implicitly mean that the route is a unicast IP route? My understanding is that the destination is distinctly not a local IP, because of the presence of the parameter "via" in the nexthop definition. : If you do not like this policy you can use static routes : to solve the problem. And now I'm really feeling like a dunce! I understand "proto static" (I think), but I don't see how that would solve this problem. Thanks for any insight, Julian, -Martin -- Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
