Thanks.

Sorry, this confuses me a little now.

Would I be better putting my rules above 200 then?

One end (VPN Cook, IP 192.168.1.x - Firmware 3.8.2_VT2):


Other end (VPN Thatch, IP 192.168.0.x - Firmware 3.7.8.3):

If you set the VPN rules to have a lower priority number than the other rules, it should work.

I personally recommend using a Priority value of 200, which should also fix this, because then the routing table will have priority and the VPN traffic will route through the VPN instead of the internet, with your policy route configuration.

If I set it above 200, so the routing table has priority, will that mean the routing of local subnet>wan 1 will be bypassed too?

I can't get it working with screen shots above, unless I disable the rules on one side

Thanks.

I deleted the two VPN rules, put the rules to force traffic to WAN1 above 200, and it seems to be working. VPNs work, but I do see a little bit of traffic on WAN2 on the traffic graph. Not much, just some.

What's WAN9 ?

When pinging a remote IP from the router, it says pinging via WAN9?