Hello, Beginning on March 15th, the pseudo-RIP transmissions from amprgw will include the various subnet prefixes which are being advertised by BGP. They will show a next-hop address of 169.228.34.84, which is amprgw. Marius assures me that this will cause no harm, and will enable tunnel-only AMPRNet hosts to reach those destinations via the tunnel. He says that many tunnel-connected hosts have a semi-default route to amprgw that has to be manually installed when the system is set up; this would now be automatic when employing the various ampr-rip programs. Quoting Marius: So, wouldn't it make sense to publish BGP routed networks that do not have 'tunnel ' set in the portal as RIP routes using amprgw as gateway? This would solve some issues: - Users could actually see all reachable destinations in their route list - Users could easily identify BGP networks by checking 169.228.34.84 as their gateway - they could drop the setting of that 'default' route in the ampr routing table, allowing a (implicit) throw to the main table. This will make it easier to reach local or directly connected ampr networks (which now need routes placed in the ampr table). Also, unknown destinations would be NATed to the system's gateway, without putting any additional traffic to amprgw. - it would also allow to have all routes in a single routing table while being able to reach tunneled and BGPd networks using their AMPR address without policy routing. Existing set-ups would not affected by such a change in any way. Marius, YO2LOJ Please be sure to let me know if there are any problems with this change; it can be reverted in a matter of moments if an unexpected difficulty does arise. - Brian