>> The problem is that -interface doesn't take an interface name; it
>> takes an interface local address.  [...]
> Are we all on the same page?  [...]  We're discussing options to
> route(8), aren't we?

Right.  Specifically, I'm working from

	.\"	$NetBSD: route.8,v 1.6 1995/03/18 15:00:13 cgd Exp $

The text in question is

	If the destination is directly reachable
	via an interface requiring
	no intermediary system to act as a gateway, the 
	.Fl interface
	modifier should be specified;
	the gateway given is the address of this host on the common network,
	indicating the interface to be used for transmission.

I do notice -ifp and -ifa options in that file

	In a
	.Cm change
	or
	.Cm add
	command where the destination and gateway are not sufficient to specify
	the route (as in the
	.Tn ISO
	case where several interfaces may have the
	same address), the
	.Fl ifp
	or
	.Fl ifa
	modifiers may be used to determine the interface or interface address.

but no indication is given of what sort of argument(s) they might take,
rendering them...less than useful.

I just checked -current, and find that the route.8 there is

	.\"     $NetBSD: route.8,v 1.11 1997/08/27 06:38:06 mikel Exp $

However, diffing that against the route.8 I mentioned above does not
show any differences relevant to this discussion.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B