On 04/10/18 08:49, Rob Janssen wrote:

...

I updated ampr-ripd in line with recent changes.  Running v2.3.  I do use multiple routing tables as recommended in the documentation.

Using multiple routing tables is good when you have to work around source address filtering, so you want to send traffic from your 44 address to systems outside 44.0.0.0/8 via another default router, e.g. amprgw, than your usual internet traffic.

Yep, it makes things a lot easier to manage.  I don't make a lot of use of that capability, given the legal situation here.

However, I think ampr-ripd >= 2.0 should insert a route for 44.0.0.1 in your table for net44 like:

44.0.0.1 via 169.228.34.84 dev tunl0  proto ampr-ripd onlink

Nope, it doesn't (looking at my net44 table routes now).

Strange that you don't have that.  But when you use multiple tables you should also have:

default via 169.228.34.84 dev tunl0 onlink

This one I do have.

in the net44 table (unless you use another system to work around source address filtering) so it should not matter much that 44.0.0.1 is missing as this happens to use the same gateway.

Yeah at this point in time, a route to 44.0.0.1 is technically redundant, since the default route in the net44 table covers it.