Netifd proto_add_host_dependency (called by wireguard) replacing unreachable route

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

> I think that netifd really wanted to add a dependency to the first
> route, not the second one.
> Maybe netifd should ignore those routes with types for host
> dependencies, but I don't know  the consequences of that change.

Or maybe it is ok to monitor those kinds of routes if their type is preserved
and it netifd consider metrics when it selects the best route.