What I am guessing Harold is missing is the policy based routing. assuming you are starting the rip listener ex: ampr-ripd -s -r -t 44 -i tunl0 -a 44.92.21.0/24 and telling it with the -t option to place the routes into table 44, you can/should look at those first to ensure they are there; "ip route show table 44" From there you can inspect the specific route to whatever host you are trying to reach. But you need some policy based routing on top of those to seperate; -your local network -routes to other gateways -routes that should default to ucsd Maybe someone can share those for Harold's what I have available at the moment (not at home) . I have not updated since the sale of a portion of 44net. I am guessing this latter part of the policy based routing statements is what is missing or wrong in his case. On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 3:29 PM Harold Kinchelow via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:

Ok so it seems that for everyone I cannot ping or traceroute, their subnets are not in my routing table. Ill kick back for a few days and see they end up populating. Thanks all who assisted with this Harold K7ILO From: Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 10:03 AM To: Harold Kinchelow <k7ilo(a)outlook.com> Cc: Harold Kinchelow via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Subject: Re: [44net] Re: Testing 1 2 3 4 What I am guessing Harold is missing is the policy based routing. assuming you are starting the rip listener ex: ampr-ripd -s -r -t 44 -i tunl0 -a 44.92.21.0/24 and telling it with the -t option to place the routes into table 44, you can/should look at those first to ensure they are there; "ip route show table 44" From there you can inspect the specific route to whatever host you are trying to reach. But you need some policy based routing on top of those to seperate; -your local network -routes to other gateways -routes that should default to ucsd Maybe someone can share those for Harold's what I have available at the moment (not at home) . I have not updated since the sale of a portion of 44net. I am guessing this latter part of the policy based routing statements is what is missing or wrong in his case. On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 3:29 PM Harold Kinchelow via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: