static route versus direct connected.

RouterOS Forwarding Protocols
1

This is in 3.30 using the normal routing package.

I would expect an interface route would take preference over a static route; that’s the way it works in about every other router out there.

In this example, routerOS failed to do that. I enabled an ethernet vlan interface that had been disabled (basically a mothballed backup link) Now that this link is active, it shows up as active in the routing table, but fails to take precedence over the existing static route.

I think there might be some problem here. I can correct it by disabling the static route, but I really should not have to do that.

[admin@bht] /ip address> print
Flags: X - disabled, I - invalid, D - dynamic
 #   ADDRESS            NETWORK         BROADCAST       INTERFACE
 0   10.0.1.5/24        10.0.1.0        10.0.1.255      ether1
 1 X 10.0.29.1/24       10.0.29.0       10.0.29.255     metinic
[admin@bht] /ip address> enable 1
[admin@bht] /ip address> /ping 10.0.29.2
10.0.29.2 ping timeout
69.39.117.35 92 byte redirect host (5:1) time=2 ms
69.39.117.35 92 byte redirect host (5:1) time=2 ms
69.39.117.35 92 byte redirect host (5:1) time=10 ms
69.39.117.35 92 byte redirect host (5:1) time=2 ms
69.39.117.35 92 byte redirect host (5:1) time=1 ms
[admin@bht] /ip address> /ip route
[admin@bht] /ip route> print
 5 A S  10.0.29.0/24                       reachable     69.39.117.35        1        matinicus
 6  DC  10.0.29.0/24       10.0.29.1                                         0        metinic
2

thats the way it should work, connected takes precedence.

it looks like the ip address is disabled, and your route is only ‘DC’, not ‘ADC’. If you enable the IP address on that interface, does it go ADC? Is the cost still 0 with the static being 1? Is check-gateway being used?