🚀 go-pugleaf

> when my gateway (pe1chl net) would send to the 9600 stations, 
> the address field was always: WD6EHR-3 > WD6EHR-3 :, etc;

What happens is simply that your machine is using its own "arp publish"
entry. You would really like to have separate ARP tables for each
interface. I am afraid you may either have to change the ARP code
yourself, or you will have to accept that ARP is not a routing protocol.
You should probably instruct the other stations on the 2m frequency to
enter manual IP routes for the 9600 baud stations that go through your
machine.
Or you could just try to use some automated routing protocol.

> the only thing that has worked thus far is setting up a dummy gateway
> for each station,  using a second .ampr.org address, i.e.
[44.16.0.175], 
> and having the other station use "arp publish [44.16.0.175] ax25
> wd6ehr-7" (in the case of my second 9600 station, wd6ehr-7,
> [44.16.0.22]). _EACH_  station must use a _different_ "dummy"
> address for this to work!

All right, that might work, but it is not necessary for the other
station to do the "arp publish." You can acheive the same effect by
using local "arp add" statements. You also don't need to use the
callsign of any second station of yours for this to work. Just use the
real callsign of the destination station instead.

For example, suppose you want to route traffic between a 9600 baud
station (w1xxx-96.ampr.org) and the regular 2m channel. Do like this:

arp publish  w1xxx-96.ampr.org  ax25  WD6EHR-3
route add  w1xxx-96.ampr.org  96  [44.16.0.175]
arp add  [44.16.0.175]  ax25  W1XXX

where 96 is the name of your 9600 baud interface, and 44.16.0.175 is
some dummy address. This is more practical than the scheme you are
currently using because no extra ARP packets are sent on the channel,
and you don't have to involve a third station. The only thing
w1xxx-96.ampr.org needs to do for this to work is

route add default 96 wd6ehr-3.ampr.org

> BTW, the route-add/arp-publish above works fine for slip - but not 
> ax25 encapsulated /ip.

SLIP doesn't use any hardware addresses, so it doesn't look at the ARP
table and couldn't care less about its "arp publish" statements.

But the route-add/arp-publish thing would also work fine between AX.25
and NET/ROM interfaces for instance. That is because NOS keeps separate
ARP tables for each interface protocol type. (AX.25, NET/ROM and
Ethernet are those currently supported.) NOS has to distinguish between
the protocols used by each interface, because the hardware addresses are
in general not related to each other for a given station, or even
compatible.

Good luck,
	Anders W3/SM0RGV