When I compare the routing table on the gateway to the client's there is a significant difference, see below gateway routing table.
B 0.0.0.0/0 via 204.xxx.xxx.1, wrp128, cost None, age 51799
S 10.xxx.0.0/24 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost 0, age 53310
B 10.xxx.1.0/24 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.2.0/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.3.0/24 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.4.0/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.4.248/29 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.5.0/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.6.0/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.32.0/24 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.33.0/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.33.32/27 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.33.64/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
C 10.xxx.33.192/26 is directly connected, eth3.3
B 10.xxx.62.192/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.64.0/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.64.64/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.64.128/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.64.192/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.65.0/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.65.64/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.65.128/26 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
B 10.xxx.254.6/32 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.255.0/30 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
C 10.xxx.255.8/30 is directly connected, eth3.15
C 10.xxx.255.12/30 is directly connected, eth3.16
B 10.xxx.255.32/30 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.255.44/30 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
B 10.xxx.255.168/30 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost None, age 51790
S 10.zzz.0.0/16 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost 0, age 53310
S 10.zzz.32.11/32 via 10.xxx.xxx.13, eth3.16, cost 0, age 53310
B 10.zzz.255.44/30 via 10.xxx.xxx.9, eth3.15, cost None, age 51794
C 127.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, lo
B 120.xxx.xxx.180/30 via 204.xxx.xxx.z, wrp128, cost None, age 51799
B 167.xxx.xxx.128/30 via 204.xxx.xxx.z, wrp128, cost None, age 51796
B 204.xxx.xxx.z/24 via 204.xxx.xxx.z, wrp128, cost None, age 51799
C 204.xxx.xxx.z/28 is directly connected, wrp128
The client's routing table if far larger. Any ideas why the disparity?
Also note that the client gets injected with 2 additional default routes with different subnet masks which aren't in the gateway's routing table. Would you know where these come from?