From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Aug 21 17:03:45 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA19606
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 17:03:45 -0700
Received: from easynet.com ([199.2.26.10])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA19600
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 17:03:43 -0700
Received: from easy4.easynet.com by easynet.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0skgon-000rgKC; Mon, 21 Aug 95 17:03 WET DST
Received: (from brian@localhost) by easy4.easynet.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id AAA18383 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:05:46 GMT
From: Brian Litzinger <brian@mediacity.com>
Message-Id: <199508220005.AAA18383@easy4.easynet.com>
Subject: A question of routing
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:05:46 +0000 ()
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7a]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1210      
Sender: questions-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

I have a machine with lots of network interfaces:

ed0, ed1, tun0-15, de0.

Also, the ed0 interface is aliased to all sorts of IP address while
the rest are all the same IP.


ed0	   10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 - 10.0.0.79
ed1	   10.0.0.1
tun0-15	   10.0.0.1
de0	   10.0.0.1

-net 10.0.1 is reachable via ed1
-net 10.0.2 is reachable via de0
various nets on tun0, tun1, etc.

machine 10.0.1.30 is on the "other side" of ed1 and have several other
nets hooked to it via various interfaces.

The problem I run into  is

route add -net 10.1.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 10.0.1.30

results in the netstat entry

10.1.0.0    10.0.1.30       UG          3   275517  tun0 

unfortunately, 10.0.1.30 is reachable via ed1 not tun0?

I am uncertain why tun0 is being selected as the interface via which
10.0.1.30 is reachable. Pings, telnets, etc, to 10.0.1.30 go via
ed1 just like they are supposed to.

I suspect it has something to do with tun0 being the last interface to
be (ifconfiged?, routed via?, who knows?) and thus it is being used
as a default in some way.

Anyone know what this is happening?  Is there are way to specify which
interface to use in adding the above route?

Thanks,

Brian Litzinger
brian@easynet.com