IPIP gateways should not use amprgw default route. Ex: ip route add default dev tunl0 via 169.228.66.251 onlink .... IPIP gateways and the Wireless LAN's behind them will then be able to reach the BGP'd portions. I think that only leaves this scenario: BPG gateways and the wireless LAN's behind them will not be able to reach IPIP gateways and the LAN's behind them, as UCSD can't get a reply back to them. destined traffic an intermediary ISP to fix this. Again from what I understand. The problem stems from a routing loop in the architecture at UCSD, when traffic leaves amprgw destine for a BGP'd chunk of the network. Others can correct me if I am wrong. Steve, KB9MWR ---- Quote ---- So is the architectural debate over, or are people just tired of arguing? Frankly, there's been so much back and forth that I don't know what's expected any more. As I understand it, some nodes are on the IPIP mesh, some not. Some are reachable through amprgw, some not. What a mess. If the debate is over and there is consensus on a standard gateway architecture, then someone needs to publish it. I'm thinking the design should include a diagram of how to address the interfaces (which tunnels need AMPR addresses, which don't), where NATing occurs, what the ampr routing table should look like, what the ip rules should look like, etc. Otherwise, I guess it's up to each individual person to parse through the last 100 or so emails to figure out what they're going to do. Maybe I'll find time to do that . Someday. And folks wonder why there's not more participation . Michael N6MEF