>I've attached what I think is the relevant output below.
>
>Notice the route for 192.168.1.1, which should be reachable via
>interface tun8.  For some reason that I cannot fathom, "route get
>192.168.1.1" tells me that it's using the default route out the
>"fe0" interface, instead of the the more specific route (which
>appears to be marked UP) as far as I can tell.

	any differences if you add "-host" or "-netmask"?
	% route -n get -host 192.168.1.1
	% route -n get -netmask 0xffffffff 192.168.1.1

itojun