From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue Apr 11 22:47:45 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA28364
          for questions-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 22:47:45 -0700
Received: from kksys.skypoint.net (kksys.skypoint.net [199.86.32.5])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA28357
          for <questions@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 22:47:44 -0700
Received: from starfire.mn.org by kksys.skypoint.net with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0ryuLZ-0003V4C; Tue, 11 Apr 95 23:48 CDT
Received: (from john@localhost) by starfire.mn.org (8.6.8/1.2.1)
	 id AAA01962 for questions@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:46:46 -0500
From: John Lind <john@starfire.mn.org>
Message-Id: <199504120546.AAA01962@starfire.mn.org>
Subject: update on subnet routing and FreeBSD 2.0-950322-SNAP
To: questions@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD questions)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:46:45 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 764       
Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Just in case anyone was wondering, the solution to the problem was
to put the -netmask qualifier (and its associated mask value)
AFTER the destination parameter, not after the "add" option keyword,
even though the route command confirmation and the netstat output
look correct in both case.  The manual does state that the -netmask
qualifer should follow the destination parameter, so the correct
operation is consistent with the documentation, though I missed
that subtlety earlier.

Thanks to those of you who have so kindly replied.

I will post to hacers with more detailed information about the
seemingly anamolous behavior of route and netstat.

		   John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services
E-mail: john@starfire.MN.ORG		USnail: PO Box 17247, Mpls MN  55417