On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Thu, February 19, 2015 12:33, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I added these directives to the route-eth0:192 file:
ADDRESS0=192.168.6.9 NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1
Which should have been:
ADDRESS0=192.168.6.0
NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1
If you were to use ip route syntax, I believe you could set a Metric so you have a floating default route out the 192.168.6.0/24 network.
192.168.6.0/24 via 192.168.6.1 metric 10
There may be a way (though not mentioned in the docs below) to accomplish the same thing using network/netmask syntax you used in your example.
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/htm... https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/htm... https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/htm...
But it still doesn't matter. Your netmask in the ifcfg- file already covers that range and you don't need another route/GATEWAY for it. You don't need the route- file at all.
Agreed, no need for a route file. Just pull the gateway line from the ifcfg file for the internal network. ( I'm just posting the syntax/alternatives for anybody else's sake. )
Thank you. I was grasping at straws in this case to solve a strange routing problem that turned out to be a misconfigured gateway firewall. It was a very odd error because it only affected one of our off-site net-blocks. So tracking it down cause a little more hair-pulling than usual.
Fixed for now.
-- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos