Primary gateway with static ip address not activating

[jaclaz]

@CGGXANNX
Yes, exactly , that is why I say not 100% correct, the scope "always" 10, add one for target-scope 11 (+1) for the narrow route and add again one for target-scope 12 (+1) for the main route is only much simpler to remember, as long as it works, though of course the "proper" way is the one you explained.

@slimprize
Yes, those would be seemingly fine for the original (but more complex) "simple" approach by Filo, the "further simplified" one:

Simpler Failover for two Gateways I found working

Only to keep things as together as possible I just “sold” this Filo’s approach to a new user, with a few changes. I got rid of the separate routing table and of the mangle by adding a “narrow” /32 route to the “canary” ip address in “main” table. And I didn’t use the “comment” as selector in the Netwatch script (this is a pet peeve of mine, comments may be changed accidentally six months or a year later, the setup would stop working and finding out what happened would be more difficult). Be…

need not the added routing table and mangling.

A word of general warning, Dos/Windows are generally speaking case insensitive, Unix/Linux - again generally speaking - are instead case sensitive, so it is always a good idea (no idea if it matters in this case, pardon me the pun) to respect case, namely:

add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=192.168.100.1 distance=1 comment="> S> econdary_failover"

may or may not be found by:

down-script="/ip route enable [find comment=> s> econdary-failover]"
up-script="/ip route disable [find comment=> s> econdary-failover]"

The "simpler" approach also uses dst-address and gateway as search parameter, this way you have not the issue (numbers are the same small or capital) but more than that you do not depend on the comment(s) of the route(s) (that three, six, or twelve months in the future you may decide to change without thinking that they are relevant for the failover).