On 2016/09/14 08:16, Brent Cook wrote: > phessler and I looked at this last week, and if I understand correctly, > the indirect gateway address was the main problem here. We manually > added a route via the tunnel address instead, and things seemed to work > as expected. > > So, would a patch like this make more sense?
It might do but I definitely need to have another look at the indirect gateway bits and figure out how to do some testing, currently I'm holding off updating one remote machine because I'm pretty certain my multi-pppoe setup is going to break as a result of this change too ..
