Gateway Failback States

[ruddypink]

Hi,

I have a quick question:
I noticed the two (long awaited, at least for me that I'm using a secondary backup LTE connection) configuration items:

-  Failback States
-  Failover States

Have been added to the Gateway configuration, however there is one thing that is not clear to me.
Why the entry "Failback States" is displayed only if "Disable Gateway Monitoring" is NOT checked.

While it's clear that to declare a gateway as dead you need the monitoring to be activated, so "Failback States" entry is displayed only if monitoring of the Gateway is active, I can't understand why instead to decide it's time to stop using an LTE connection and failback I need to activate the monitoring on it.
In my basic configuration I have a primary Gateway connected via ADSL (WAN) and an (OPT1) LTE connection. I have the monitor activated on my WAN so that, if it fails, automagically OPNSense switches to use OPT1. When WAN comes back available (and again this is discovered using monitoring on WAN) then OPNSense should interrupt all the communications flowing through OPT1 and come back to use WAN. In my configuration I keep OPT1 monitoring switched off simply because I don't see what would be the point in knowing OPT1 is down.. The cobinations could be: I could prevent the failover to OPT1 if WAN fails and OPT1 is also failing.. but I wouldn't even know how to set this up and nonetheless there would be small if not any advantage. The other point about knowing if OPT1 is unavailable is when I'm already using it but if OPT1 is in use it means WAN also failed so again, what would it be the advantage ? I cannot switch back to WAN as countermeasure because it's not working..

Maybe there are other use cases I did not spot and so actually the "Failover States" usage must be conditioned to the usage of monitoring on the corresponding Gateway but I cannot see one actually.
In the end there is always the possibility to place a "fake" (local?) monitoring on OPT1 (having Failover States activated) but it's not so "elegant".
What is your suggestion ? 

Thanks in advance and thanks for providing such a fantastic piece of code !