[CentOS] adding static route via network setup fails

Kai Schaetzl maillists at conactive.com
Tue Apr 28 21:07:47 UTC 2009


Nate wrote on Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT):

> any net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 192.168.2.3
> 
> in your /etc/sysconfig/static-routes file

yes, this works, thanks! I have found a better method without adding a 
route in the meantime, but I wanted to know about this, just in case.

> 
> Though I'm not sure why you'd want to have a static
> route that points to a local interface, just set the
> subnet of the interface to 255.255.255.224 and you
> don't need a static route.

That actually does not work. The net is set, of course, I think you would 
get an error if not. The case is a bit complicated. I want to reach a domU 
from another machine thru a crossover link and not via the switched 
network. For that purpose I added a private subnet to all involved NICs 
and to the domU. That works in one direction but not in the other 
direction. It also doesn't work from the dom0 itself. When I add this 
route it all works. Another solution is to use another private subnet for 
the third NIC in the machine. Originally, NIC2 and NIC3 had both an IP 
number from the same private subnet and NIC3 seems to have catched all the 
packets. And the whole thing was only necessary because of this:
SUBJECT:[CentOS] eth0 killed when adding virtual interface and 
multipleNICs are present

> 
> I use that syntax and it works fine..

Indeed, but it's not in the manual :-(
I had read about it in a few postings, but it seemed to be obsoleted.
I think the route-interface syntax does not work because it all involves 
an interface. The route add and the static-routes don't specify an 
interface.

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com





More information about the CentOS mailing list